A Cry For Justice: Domestic Violence and the Church

Long term domestic violence: Being abused in this manner is like being kidnapped and tortured for ransom but you will never have enough to pay off the kidnapper. by Rebecca J. Burns link

41yiNrQRjVL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_

Amazon
 

Violence. As Christians we often speak out against the senseless violence we see in our society. The massacres at a movie theater or school, late term abortions, and street crime all rivet our attention. Some of us put our hope in the church, thinking that going to a Christian church will put an end to senseless violence. Well, at least I used to believe this to be true. (*Face palm* for previous stupidity on my part).

Yet, in the Bible, we have the very real example of David, a man after God's own heart, killing the husband of his lover. So why do we think we are exempt from acts of violence?

As Christians, we are positionally holy; yet we are functionally still sinners. However, it seems we try to overlook this fact. Instead we point to the sins of those outside the church, preferring to turn a blind eye to the violence that occurs inside the rarefied atmosphere of the supposedly sanctified basilica. In fact, it is this continued violence that causes me to realize how much we need the grace of our Lord because we are not doing a good job in eradicating this sin from out midst. Domestic violence and child sex abuse remain a blot on the body of Christ.

If we truly believe that we are sinners, in need of daily grace and forgiveness, why are we so quick to hide our sins? Shouldn't we be the first to admit our fallen nature and our need for a Savior to our watching world? Instead, we cover and conceal our sins and vigorously point out the sins of the culture around us. They see through us every time, folks. We are only fooling ourselves.

Just as TWW believes that child sex abuse has been ignored and mishandled by many churches, we know that domestic violence counseling is equally neglected and botched in today's church. We will be writing on the subject of domestic violence and the church over the next week or so. We will focus on an excellent (super recommended) book by Jeff Crippen  and Anna Wood:

A Cry For Justice
How the Evils of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your Church

Here is the thesis of the book (p.12).

Victims of abuse are often discounted by their churches. When they gain courage to seek help, they are routinely given superficial advice. accused of not being good wives or children, told they are surely exaggerating the case, and then sent home to "do better" and suffer even more at the hands of their tormentor. And when the finally leave their abuser, either by separation or divorce, most often the victim is the one who must leave their church while the abuser remains.

The church, in other words, is enabling the wicked person.

Today, there were two major news items that dealt with domestic violence. Both of them present the complexities of dealing with violence and its effects. I have added two other stories to round out the discussion. It is our intent to show that domestic violence is prevalent in society and in all kinds of churches. The sad reality of this discussion is that churches do no better than the culture at large. Yet the church is sure loud when it comes to condemning society on their supposed rejection of "traditional" values. I guess that means that domestic violence is considered a "traditional" value in some churches.

Secular (as far as we know)

Nigella Lawson appears to be choked by husband in public link.

You can see the picture of what appears to be her husband choking her at the above link. Pay particular attention to the response by the husband in this account.

 British police are investigating newspaper photos that show art collector Charles Saatchi with his hands around the throat of his wife, celebrity chef Nigella Lawson.

The pictures drew widespread condemnation after they were published by the Sunday People tabloid. The paper said the images were taken during an argument at a London restaurant on June 9.

The London police force said Monday it had not received a criminal complaint about the incident, and "inquiries are in hand to establish the facts" in order to assess whether a formal investigation is warranted.

In Britain a complaint from the victim is not necessary to lay assault charges if there is enough evidence from witnesses.

Lawson's spokesman, Mark Hutchinson, declined to comment on the images. But Saatchi, Britain's best-known art collector, told London's Evening Standard newspaper that the pictures misrepresented a "playful tiff."

  • What would you do if you witnessed this in a public setting?
  • What do you believe that the police should do in this instance?
     

Roman Catholic

A teacher is fired from Holy Trinity school in San Diego after a domestic violence incident link

A San Diego teacher was fired by Holy Trinity School following a domestic violence incident involving her ex-husband. Second-grade teacher Carie Charlesworth is out of a job, but not for anything she did in the classroom. Her school district considers her a liability and too unsafe to have around following a domestic violence dispute that happened earlier this year.

…her estranged husband who had threatened her showed up at her school, causing a lockdown.

The diocese will not renew her contract, in that school, or others in their district. Her children were banned from attending the school as well.

Here is the letter that she received from the diocese link.

We know from the most recent incident involving you and Mrs. Wright (the principal) while you were still physically at Holy Trinity School, that the temporary restraining order in effect were not a deterrent to him. Although we understand he is current incarcerated, we have no way of knowing how long or short a time he will actually serve and we understand from court files that he may be released as early as next fall. In the interest of the safety of the students, faculty and parents at Holy Trinity School, we simply cannot allow you to return to work there, or, unfortunately, at any other school in the Diocese

  • What should be the response of the church to this teacher who is a devout member of their diocese?
  • What should happen to the children of the teacher who attended this school?
  • Should the school also be concerned for the safety of the other children at the school? 
  • Is there something that could be done to protect all involved?

Non-Reformed Baptist

Paige Patterson and the abused woman link

The Southern Baptist Outpost has an article with an excerpt from audio recordings and transcripts from a conference in 2000, in which Paige Patterson explains the counsel he gave one battered woman. Here’s the quote the Outpost posted:
 

“I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.”  And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.”  And sure enough, he did.  She came to church one morning with both eyes black.  And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter.  And she said, “I hope you’re happy.”  And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.”  And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy."
 

"And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came.  And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front.  And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.”  And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?”  And he’s a great husband today.  And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis.  And remember, when nobody else can help, God can.

Can anyone give a reason for why this is considered "biblical" advice?

Reformed Baptist

This is a true story with names and location changed to protect the victims. This is about a large, Reformed Southern Baptist church. The leadership did not allow contact numbers for the local domestic abuse hotline to be posted in the church. We bet our readers are thinking that the pastors wanted to be consulted to give "biblical" support instead. If you did, you would be correct. Let's take a look at the "Scripturally correct" support that they did offer.

One of the gazillion pastors at this church was abusing his wife and, according to some reports, his young children. While the pastor was at work, the wife's family came to her home and got her to leave with the children. The family then called the lead pastor and requested his assistance in dealing with the abuse. He refused, saying that she would have to move back into the home in order for this to be handled in a "biblical" fashion. Thankfully, the family refused and instituted divorce proceedings. But the abused wife is the one being blamed by the church for the break-up of the marriage.

  • Once again, can anyone come up with a reason why the pastor's solution was sound advice?
  • Was the divorce both biblical and warranted?

We will discuss these questions, and more, in subsequent posts. We will also continue to review A Cry for Justice. We look forward to hearing our readers' thoughts on these examples.

Lydia's Corner: 1 Kings 12:20-13:34 Acts 9:26-43 Psalm 132:1-18 Proverbs 17:6

 

Comments

A Cry For Justice: Domestic Violence and the Church — 254 Comments

  1. This is part of the reason why I no longer attend church….When I was in SWBTS there were a certain percentage of the male students who were as we said in those days, ” Beating their wives.” The same guilt trip was placed on the wife…” “You’ll ruin the man’s career” if you leave him….Baloney.
    It took several years of beatings for these women to finally get up enough courage to leave their spouses….

  2. The church and society at large perpetuate the fiction that most marriages end due to falling out of love. However, the truth is that the #1 reason given for divorce over age 40 is abuse.

  3. If you know of a lady in an abusive marriage, and she is scared to leave, is there a way to help her?

    Are there resources out there to help moms in abusive marriages get custody of their kids when they leave?

  4. Dee,

    There are so many who have similar stories. It is one of the greatest shames on the church in this generation. I can join you in the face palm for previous stupidity. Before I started researching abuse (I was only looking for spiritual abuse at the time) I would have thought for sure a “good” church would be a safe place for someone being abused by their spouse. I have since learned by personal experience (as a friend and supporter of an abuse victim) this is absolutely NOT the case.

    My friend went to the church for help and when she dared put her and her children’s safety above the interests of the marriage she got the left boot.

    Meanwhile, her abuser was warmly received because he wanted to “work on the marriage” meaning he wanted them to pressure his wife to return. She’s a smart cookie, though and gave him the left boot, figuratively speaking. But she is persona non grata at said religious institution.

  5. Paige Patterson who is so highly esteemed in SBC circles has certainly been a leader of the type of nonsensical advice to this woman. I can not prove it but I wonder if anyone has died staying in these abusive relationships in SBC churches.

    If I may be so bold–the SBC seems to care very little for its women members.

  6. To leave:
    1. have a plan
    2. contact the local family abuse center
    3. gather documentation — bank account statements, car title, keys, medical card, etc.,pictures of abuse
    4. pick a time when the children are at home or can be picked up at school with little alarm.
    5. put your case of documents, etc. in the car, with two/three changes of clothes for yourself and children.
    6. go to the bank and drain as much as you can from the account, do not overdraft the account.
    7. pick up the children.
    8. go to the abuse center.

    If police have been involved.
    1. Immediately file for a protective order, including an ex parte temporary protective order. Make sure that the police, sheriff, and constables know about it. Ask in the application for possession of the house, car, bank accounts, children, etc.
    2. DO NOT GO BACK TO THE ABUSER OR ALLOW THE ABUSE TO COME TO THE HOUSE.
    3. Be sure paperwork at the school shows you and not your abuser as the person to contact and to pick up children.
    4. Be in touch with Legal Aid, the Family Abuse Center, etc.

    As a man, I will say that any one who beats up a woman is not really a man, but a monster. One time is one time too many.

  7. @ dee:
    Exactly! The SBC is an all boys club as far as leaders. IMO these men leaders can not deal with any strong women. They take the Bible literally when it is convenient and involves women and do not view them as equals. They must be taught in Seminary how not to take women seriously–this includes their stories of abuse. I do not understand why women do not leave the SBC in mass.

  8. An Attorney, excellent advice. It should be noted, however, that leaving is the most dangerous time for a victim of dv. If he was angry before, he’ll be even more angry at this action on her part.

    Also worthy of mentioning is that protective orders are only effective if the abuser respects the law. It’s only a piece of paper otherwise.

    I strongly advise safe houses/shelters as opposed to family or friends. I was personally involved in a case where the father was fatally shot for harboring the abuser’s wife. The wife was shot as well but survived.

  9. btw, the phone # for the National Domestic Violence Hotline is 1-800-799-SAFE (7233). They will counsel you anonymously and refer you to a local shelter in your area.

  10. @ kindakrunchy:
    My sister followed most of what An Attorney good advice, going into a women’s shelter. It took years of coaxing and she eventually found her courage after I accompanied her to the shelter to see the safe room she’d be sleeping in behind those stout locked doors. The minute she agreed, three of us went to her home and packed/moved her stuff in 4 hours. The people at the shelter were good to her and her two boys! She needed friends’ support, too. It is hard!

  11. A couples of things to add to the list:
    Call your cell phone company and credit card company and ask about the programs they have for domestic violence victims. You might be surprised. They never advertise them, but they are generous in some states.

  12. Churches don’t hide their sin. They shrug at their inability to do anything other than walk in their inherent depravity. The only thing Christians can do is declare “but for the grace of God go I”. Who are we to judge, for ALL sin is deserving of hell…is the reformed refrain.

    We turn a blind “non judging” eye on the sins of our churches. We proof text “he who has no sin cast the first stone” in defense of the inherent abuse the theology implies. THIS is what drives away the world from the church. The fact that the world often makes better moral judgements than the “local church” is not lost on the world.

  13. mot wrote:

    I do not understand why women do not leave the SBC in mass.

    I would suspect it’s because they fear that they’ll lose their “salvation” and be sent to hell upon exiting this world.

  14. I probably should say that I’ve been trying to help her get out for two years. I will continue to try to get her out and help her all I can, but just having guidelines may convince her.

  15. It’s not just in the SBC but in Fundamentalist sects as well.Women would get the same answers and counsel as well. But yet as Christians we are to hate what God hates. Without reading anything else and simply seeing how Christ treated women and how he felt about children, I would say he would rebuke these guys with an acid tongue and hates what is being done for women on violence in the home. I also think we as women and children have a special spot in God’s heart. As many passages as there are on the downtrodden and abused, justice in scripture, I don’t believe I am wrong. I hate what God hates and I hate how the church has been reacting to violence against women and children. It makes me angry and I want to vomit.

  16. From Christa Brown’s blog(May 2008)

    “Pollster George Barna, himself an evangelical, did a study which concluded that women in traditional, male-dominated marriages were 300 times more likely to be beaten than women in egalitarian marriages. (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, p. 80)”

  17. One of the very first posts I wrote when I changed over to a new blog(I’ve written 2 blogs) was a post reacting to Bruce Ware’s statement in 2008 when he said that women were beaten because they did not keep with their Biblical role and refused to be submissive. I blew my top in a post.

  18. Even at my mainline non-denominational church things are skewed in favor of the perpetrator. After leaving two abusive relationships with my Christian boyfriends, I was told that I was either: a) usurping his authority; or b) given the gift of singleness. Sadly, I know quite a few women my age who are under the control of their Christian husbands. It scares me to think the h-ll they endure.

  19. @ An Attorney:
    USA Domestic Violence Hotline: 1800-999-SAFE = 1800-999-7233
    (for TTY,phone 1800- 787- 3224)

    International Directory of Domestic Violence Agencies (information in more than 80 languages) — http://www.hotpeachpages.net/

    Risk Assessment can be a vital ingredient in safety planning: https://www.mosaicmethod.com/

    And for Christian victim-survivors of domestic abuse, there are lots of other resources on the Resources page at A Cry For Justice, where I blog with Ps Jeff Crippen. http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/recommended-resources/

    But the sad news is, many victims of domestic abuse are not being adequately helped by the justice and welfare systems. Lots of money is being spent on domestic abuse/ domestic violence, but the plight of victims seeking protection is still very dire. Abusers are masterful at manipulating the system and winning allies by pulling the wool over the eyes of people in high places (churches, courts, child protection agencies, etc.).

  20. For any person wishing to leave a domestic violence situation, it is good for them to have a personal safety plan. Here is a good link with lots of information:

    http://www.thehotline.org/get-help/safety-planning/

    I also have a hand-out that I have given to women in my domestic violence classes. It is a “fill-in-the-blank” personal safety plan. I am willing to make copies and mail it to anyone in need.

    Dee, Deb & Guy Behind the Scenes, you are welcome to give out my email to anyone who would like to request this.

  21. Pingback: A Cry For Justice: Domestic Violence and the Church

  22. I’ve met Jeff and his co-blogger Barb. I am impressed by their ministry and the way they are raising awareness on this topic. I hope to post something on my blog soon.

  23. Lots more photos of Nigella Lawson and her husband can be found here. The article drips with judmentalism of Nigella; it’s obviously written by a journalist who either doesn’t understand how to report domestic abuse, or who is a perpetrator too and is deliberately blaming the victim and minimising the wickedness of the perpetrator.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342922/Nigella-Lawson-Charles-Saatchi-says-row-playful-tiff-held-throat-emphasise-point.html

  24. @ Barbara Roberts:

    Barbara – are you familiar with the Daily Mail?

    For those that aren’t, it’s never been famed for its progressive thinking. That said, I haven’t been following the incident in question. Though unless it really was a joke that they were both in on, it doesn’t look very nice.

  25. Preventive Measures: “A Domestic Dilemma?”

    hmmm…

    Domestic abuse (violence) ‘can be favorably reduced’ by this one simple rule:

    Should a voice be raised, arbitration is required.

    What?

    Since this is not always possible ( available arbitration) , the raising of a voice becomes ‘a type of first warning system’.

    huh?

    When this (raising of the voice) occurs, a fall-back re-grouping becomes a shear necessary  (and strategically required) if successful negation is to be reached by all involved parties.

    Words, spoken in anger, must be tempered, if best the possible outcomes are to be achieved.

    One such scriptural solution : “A gentile answer turns away wrath.”

    Blessed are the peace-makers?

    (hope this helps)

    ATB

    Sopy

  26. Regarding the “Non-reformed baptist” example above.

    There is a biblical precedent for a wife winning over a non-believing husband through her believing lifestyle, in 1 Peter 3. This makes no reference to a violent or abusive husband (which is quite different from “non-believing”). One of the very first things Jesus ever declared about his kingship was that he was anointed to proclaim good news to the poor and freedom for the prisoners, to set the oppressed free – as well as recovery of sight to the blind (which in this case would surely be the husband). So if the gospel isn’t good news for the poor and the oppressed, then it’s a false gospel.

    So whether Mr Paterson was doing the right thing or not depends on several things I can’t tell from the quote above. Did he give this counsel in response to the leading of the Holy Spirit, in the midst of that very specific circumstance, such that good fruit was bound to come of it, or was he just acting out what he read in a John Piper book and happened to get lucky on this occasion? Has Mr Paterson himself a track-record in responding to unjust and even violent attacks with steadfast love, grace and patience, and has he won over enemies to become his friends in this way? Could he say to the wife, this will be hard, but I want you to do what I did in xyz situation – and I and others will stand with you every which way we can?

    What is the long-term fruit? Did the husband really change radically, or was it a mood swing such as certain violent types are prone to? Did the home quickly, or indeed immediately, become a great place for the wife to live, and is she entirely free from any fear of a sudden relapse (however temporary) into violence on her husband’s part?

    And note that Mr Paterson appears to attribute it to God helping the helpless. But this is not actually what the Bible says; 1 Peter 3 attributes the winning of a husband to the wife’s behaviour. (There are many other places where rote Christian tradition just recites “oh, it was the Lord”, when the Bible says otherwise.) Is the wife properly credited with this victory? Did she, through this episode, realise that she is not a helpless victim but that she has authority as a believer seated with Christ in heaven, and that this enables her to bring in God’s kingdom around her, even in places where some sections of the church declare her to be a chattel without power or rights? Is she now a bold, fearless ambassador for Christ (in whatever way those characteristics suit her personality)?

    Tempting as it may be, in other words, I can’t immediately dismiss Paterson’s counsel. There is a time and a place for overcoming, and the weapons of our warfare are counter-intuitive to people who only know how to fight like the world does. But they can achieve the impossible.

  27. @ Wendy Alsup:

    Dee and I have met Barb as well. What a delight she is!

    I am amazed at the community being established worldwide. It appears to me that God is assembling a constituency that will boldly address the serious matters His supposed leaders seem to be ignoring or minimizing.

    And He's given us an incredible megaphone called the internet.  One way or another, His plan will prevail!

  28. @ Jessica:

    I don’t understand how so many people can attribute “authority” to a woman’s boyfriend. I mean, he’s not your husband, how can he be “head” in any sense?! Grrr…facepalm.

  29. Nick, I have to disagree with you. If a wife has been beaten up by her husband, in NO circumstances should she be advised to stay with him. It is clear from the story that this wife was being subject to physical abuse. And her pastor advised her to remain with him and pray for him. WRONG ADVICE.

    If he beats her once, he will do it again. Even if he apologises. That has been shown time and time again in domestic violence cases.

    Dee and Deb, thank you, this is a timely subject for me. A woman at our church appeared with a very black eye several weeks ago. Thankfully, she reported her husband to the police and he is currently on bail. However, on discussing it with an elder, I was shocked at something he said. His words were: ‘You don’t know what she did to provoke him. There are two sides to the story’. What do people think of this comment?

  30. Barbara Roberts wrote:

    Lots more photos of Nigella Lawson and her husband can be found here. The article drips with judmentalism of Nigella; it’s obviously written by a journalist who either doesn’t understand how to report domestic abuse, or who is a perpetrator too and is deliberately blaming the victim and minimising the wickedness of the perpetrator. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342922/Nigella-Lawson-Charles-Saatchi-says-row-playful-tiff-held-throat-emphasise-point.html

    Barbara – I agree with you, but also be aware that the Daily Mail is known here in the UK as the Daily Fail for its poor journalism, hypocrisy & preaching of 1950's middle class values. It'd be better to nix them as a credible source. They have recently scored a total home run here by publicising an issue involving a recently post-surgery transgender teacher (much loved) making her national news with the angle of how confusing & harmful to children her change would be, & without doubt (but utterly without remorse or apology, or seemingly lessons learned)contributing to her suicide.

  31. Hester wrote:

    I don’t understand how so many people can attribute “authority” to a woman’s boyfriend. I mean, he’s not your husband, how can he be “head” in any sense?! Grrr…facepalm.

    Hester — I’ve seen men pull rank over their women friends in Christian colleges. Since when does a woman need to submit to her male friend just because he is a man? Silliness.

  32. May wrote:

    His words were: ‘You don’t know what she did to provoke him.

    Pure stupidity and most dangerous. There is never any reason for violence against one’s spouse or child.

  33. kindakrunchy wrote:

    I probably should say that I’ve been trying to help her get out for two years. I will continue to try to get her out and help her all I can, but just having guidelines may convince her.

    You can also check out Jeff Crippen’s blog.

    http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/

    They have resources page and a wealth of articles. He and his blogging partner Barbara Roberts have emails on the site and are very good at responding and very helpful and supportive. Barbara is an abuse survivor who has written Not Under Bondage dealing with the matter from a theological perspective.

    Jeff S who posts here is also a writer/editor over there.

  34. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    There is a time and a place for overcoming, and the weapons of our warfare are counter-intuitive to people who only know how to fight like the world does. But they can achieve the impossible.

    This woman did not achieve the impossible. She got whacked around again and was set up for continued abused by her husband. I think counterintuitive is to respond in kindness when someone is being mean. You know, the old sticks and stones will break my bones approach, but even that has its limits.

  35. I saw the Nigella Lawson pictures in the Telegraph. I found them horrifying, for several reasons. Lawson’s husband, Charles Saatchi, is a very wealthy man. Here he is in those pictures, grabbing at her throat, which is a threatening move, doing it in public, not caring that there was someone outside snapping pictures (which, if you’re a famous guy married to a television star you should be concerned about being seated next to a window in a restaurant), but just doing the grabbing. To me it said that this is probably not the first time he’s done it, that he has no problem doing it and he sees nothing wrong with it.

    The latest news is that he took himself down to a police station and was issued a caution:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/18/entertainment-us-nigellalawson-photos-idUSBRE95H0AW20130618

  36. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Or did this event even happen at all? What witnesses do we have? Did this man get up in front of the assembly and publicly recant his behavior and the underlying mentality that gave rise to it? Can this woman truthfully say her husband has changed, is a new man, no longer holds the belief that he is entitled to her being and doing what he wants her to do all the time, is entitled to control her in whatever way and to whatever degree he sees fit, and is justified in mistreating her when she does not do what he wants or demonstrates any degree of individuality? Where is his confession?

    A matter is determined by 2 or 3 witnesses. We have only this one from Patterson and this one could have an agenda to promote a certain doctrine. I say, where is the proof? I want the testimony of the man, his wife, his co workers, everyone who knew him as an abuser and can say, with examples, how he has changed.

  37. May wrote:

    However, on discussing it with an elder, I was shocked at something he said. His words were: ‘You don’t know what she did to provoke him. There are two sides to the story’. What do people think of this comment?

    Seems to me there are now three sides to the story, with the church leaders’ side being to play the role of Excusers/Enablers to a felony assault. Should any further violence take place on their watch as overseers, wouldn’t that at least ethically make them the equivalent of accomplices to a crime?

  38. May wrote:

    However, on discussing it with an elder, I was shocked at something he said. His words were: ‘You don’t know what she did to provoke him. There are two sides to the story’. What do people think of this comment?

    My friend too was given the “what did you to to get him to do that?” line. She didn’t think of it at the time but what she thought of later was, “wow! What power I have over this man that I can MAKE him hit me! Who knew! Now I just wonder why I don’t have power to make him stop?!!”

    If it were me I would likely have asked what do you think she could do that would ever justify that kind of response and then please explain how that kind of response fits in with love, honor, cherish, and love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for it as well as no one ever hated his own flesh but nourishes it.

    There are indeed two sides to the story and her black eye is the account of his side, and it condemns him. Her black eye is his public confession of who he is. He has already spoken to his own condemnation. He is without excuse.

  39. I think churches–even well-meaning churches–are poorly prepared to recognize the signs of true abuse.

    Years ago, I attended a church that was pastored by a very sincere and honest man. He and I had some theological disagreements over complementarianism (as I was egal and he was not) but I felt that, despite our disagreements, he was a very well-intentioned man who was honestly doing his best. Even he actually missed some signs of abuse that were coming from one couple in his church (and the husband was one of the church elders, so it’s not like the pastor didn’t know the couple well). They would talk to him about marital conflicts they were having–the conflicts were not physical, but they fit the profile of emotional abuse. Yet this pastor honestly thought that these altercations were about the wife not learning to be content with her “leader’s” decisions. If he’d had enough insight to realize what was going on, he would have condemned what the husband was doing. But he didn’t have the insight to spot it, because his pastoral training had essentially trained him out of some common sense about marriage and trained him into a hierarchical mindset.

  40. Dee wrote:

    This woman did not achieve the impossible.

    Well, if Paterson’s story is true, that’s exactly what she did.

    Precisely because I do believe in miracles today of exactly the sort Jesus performed and more, I’m strongly against the idea of running around claiming “miracle” at the drop of a hat. “Crying wolf” in that way cheapens real miracles when they occur. That’s why I’m sceptical about Paterson’s account, why I certainly don’t believe it qualifies as a formula. As @ anonymous pointed out. 2 or 3 witness in this case must be witnesses over a significant period of time. Perhaps I should make clearer than I did at first that I don’t accept the tearful appearance of a violent husband in church as proof that he has repented. (Remorse is, in some ways, the opposite of repentance: feeling bad about something, so that you can feel good about feeling bad about it, so that you can do it again.)

    As both anonymous @ anonymous and @ May pointed out, domestic abuse is a notoriously recidivistic crime. Paterson’s wording (“she was being subject to some abuse”), using the imperfect tense, implies that this abuse was indeed ongoing.

    For Paterson to claim that the husband truly changed, therefore, is to claim a miracle. Or, if you don’t like miracles, we can at least perhaps agree that the required standard of proof should be just as high. But that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

  41. Sad observer,

    I agree that pastors need much better training in this area. From my own limited experience of the incident in my church, it seems obvious that the elders are woefully ignorant and unequipped to deal with cases of domestic violence. Emotional abuse just isn’t a concept that they understand.

  42. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    So whether Mr Paterson was doing the right thing or not depends on several things I can’t tell from the quote above. Did he give this counsel in response to the leading of the Holy Spirit, in the midst of that very specific circumstance, such that good fruit was bound to come of it, or was he just acting out what he read in a John Piper book and happened to get lucky on this occasion?

    Nick- Here is where Patterson went wrong, and he is still going wrong. It is at the very point that pastors and other Christians who “advise” abuse victims get off at the wrong stop. Namely, that HE is telling the victim what SHE is to do. You mention that perhaps there was some kind of guidance going on here by the Holy Spirit. But here is the catch – Patterson is no prophet. That means that if the Holy Spirit would have an individual Christian take a particular course of action, as for example the abuse victim in this case, then the Holy Spirit (working in harmony with and through His written Word) then the Spirit will guide and direct the VICTIM. I have had contact with many, many Christians who have been victims of horrid abuse and over and over again they testify to this leading – when the Lord gave them the clear message “get out of this monstrosity that is no longer a marriage.” One of the main problems we see in the church is pastors and church leaders and individual Christians mounted up on their high horses, speaking to victims as if they (the cowboys) were prophets of God. No church, no pastor, no other human being has the right to demand or insinuate that a victim must stay with their abuser. If we all want to speak prophetically, then we must speak according to God’s revealed Word in Scripture. That Word says to abusers “Thus saith the Lord…you are toast!”

  43. @ May:

    Our stances are closer than you might first think. I don’t think one should advise either a man or a woman to remain in an abusive relationship either, unless there’s a reason – and that reason would have to be so unusual as to be noteworthy. Actually, it’s tantamount to a prophetic word to an individual, and on reflection, I’d want to see it confirmed by 2 or 3 truly independent witnesses (not just bystanders in the meeting who happen to agree that Pastor Paige is an Anointed Man Of God so he must be right). And to be frank, I’m sceptical in this case, because the advice doesn’t seem to have imparted the strength and confidence that it would have done had it actually come from God.

    As to the example you cited, I think I’d like to challenge the elders on what exactly they claim she did to do “provoke” the attack. If it was simply that she existed, or wasn’t “submissive enough”, that would be one thing; if she brandished a carving knife or a loaded firearm at him, or had dug her nails into his face and was close to scratching out his eyes, and he was forced to strike out in desperate self-defence, that would be another. In either case, the fact of his hitting her in the face (and the context suggests it was deliberate) would have to be dealt with in its context.

  44. Over here in greater Los Angeles, we had a fatal domestic-violence incident in the news last weekend. Husband tracked wife down where she was hiding out, home-invaded, dragged wifey out into the street, knifed her multiple times and left her to die. She’d been to the cops a day or two before regarding the restraining order on him.

    Tip from morning drive-time radio: If a female friend shows up at your door hiding from serious domestic violence, find somewhere else for her to stay, someplace her husband does not know about — a friend of yours they don’t know, battered woman’s shelter, anonymous cash motel. Until you can, while she’s there, stay awake and pack heat until she’s stashed somewhere else. Otherwise you might find yourself hosting another Red Wedding.

  45. Janey wrote:

    Hester wrote:

    I don’t understand how so many people can attribute “authority” to a woman’s boyfriend. I mean, he’s not your husband, how can he be “head” in any sense?! Grrr…facepalm.

    Hester — I’ve seen men pull rank over their women friends in Christian colleges. Since when does a woman need to submit to her male friend just because he is a man? Silliness.

    “Submit to him just because he’s a man” gave me a flashback to a grade school bawdy rhyme:

    “Close yo’ eyes
    An’ spread yo’ legs
    So I can fertilize yo’ eggs.”

    When someone preaches “Woman, Submit! Just because he’s a man!” that’s what “Submit” can mean. (op cit Cee Jay chuckling about his wife submitting and servicing him on-demand while she’s puking from morning sickness — Humbly, of course, chuckle chuckle)

  46. To throw a wrench in the discussion, I have some family members where the wife is the abuser both verbally and physically. If you think there is a stigma against battered wives how about battered husbands? He has literally no where to turn. He can’t fight back (even simply restraining her from hitting him) because it will land him in jail in a second. She uses “calling the police” as a means to keep control over him, because they always take her word over his. His only choices are to walk out on the family or just endure the abuse. He has contacted abuse care groups but since he is male they won’t let him come. I can only imagine what a Calvinista would tell him.

    So be careful not to equate “standing for the oppressed” with “standing with the stereotypically oppressed.” There are men hurting out there too.

  47. dee wrote:

    @ mot: But they are deeply concerned about the Boy Scouts…

    That’s Teh Fag Card. Homosexuality(TM) is THE Bright Red Murder Flag to motivate the Culture Warriors, and reality cannot be allowed to interfere with Doctrine/Ideology.

  48. Kristin wrote:

    So be careful not to equate “standing for the oppressed” with “standing with the stereotypically oppressed.” There are men hurting out there too.

    Not saying anyone here is doing this and not trying to minimize the reality of violence against women. Just offering more to the discussion. Thanks

  49. Hester wrote:

    I don’t understand how so many people can attribute “authority” to a woman’s boyfriend. I mean, he’s not your husband, how can he be “head” in any sense?!

    Because of what’s swinging between his legs. By Divine Right.

  50. An Attorney wrote:

    As a man, I will say that any one who beats up a woman is not really a man, but a monster.

    Or a Driscollian Real Man. “I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!”

  51. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Nick: Do you think it was Holy Spirit led when Patterson was asked about women and his reply was “I think every man should own one”?(Atlantic Journal, May 14, 1997) Was that good Biblical advice?

  52. @Nick
    I have two rules I must follow at my house…” Don’t beat, don’t cheat.” I know if I do either, my marriage is over, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

    A man who beats his wife is the lowest form of human. There is nothing lower. God may forgive them, but why should a wife? Maybe they won’t backside and beat me to the point I am back at the emergency room for stitches?

  53. Here is an audio of Paige Patterson speaking in a 2000 interview on women and abuse.

    http://archive.org/details/PaigePattersonsbcAdviceToVictimsOfDomesticViolence

    “It depends on the level of abuse.” “I never counsel divorce, but have counseled temporary separation” “Do not forget the power of concentrated prayer” He then speaks to the situation given on the woman with both eyes black.”I hope your happy” Paige: “I am very happy…” Was that Holy Spirit led advice?

  54. May wrote:

    ‘You don’t know what she did to provoke him. There are two sides to the story’.

    That comment is codswalloop and grossly ignorant in cases of domestic abuse.

    The “TWO SIDES” to domestic abuse are:
    (1) the abuser is lying and minimizing his wickedness to manipulate bystanders and elist them as allies to his side
    (2) the victim is telling the truth, and probably only telling the tip of the iceberg of the truth about all the abuse she has suffered.

    To take the so-called ‘neutral’ position by asserting that both spouses share the blame, is to buy right in to the blame-shifting of the abuser. Lundy Bancroft explains this brilliantly.

    NEUTRALITY IS NOT NEUTRAL
    (quote from “Why Does He DO That?” by Lundy Bancroft, p. 287)

    “Neutrality” actually serves the interests of the perpetrator much more than those of the victim, and is not neutral. Although an abuser prefers to have you wholeheartedly on his side, he will settle contentedly for your decision to take a middle stance. To him, that means you see the couple’s problems as partly her fault and partly his fault, which means it isn’t abuse.

    “In reality, to remain neutral is to collude with the abusive man, whether or not that is your goal. If you are aware of chronic or severe mistreatment and do not speak out against it, your silence communicates implicitly that you see nothing unacceptable taking place. Abusers interpret silence as approval, or at least as forgiveness. To abused women, meanwhile, the silence means that no one will help – just what her partner wants her to believe. Anyone who chooses to quietly look the other way therefore unwittingly becomes the abuser’s ally.

    “Almost anyone can become an ally of an abusive man by inadvertently adopting his perspective. People usually don’t even notice that they are supporting abusive thinking, or they wouldn’t do it.” [end quote]

    And here is a post from A Cry For Justice which discusses the myth Of neutrality and what Judith Lewis Herman, a world-famous psychologist who specialises in PTSD and domestic abuse, says about neutrality.
    http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/there-is-no-neutrality-no-innocent-bystanders-when-we-see-abuse-by-jeff-crippenevil/

  55. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    Seems to me there are now three sides to the story, with the church leaders’ side being to play the role of Excusers/Enablers to a felony assault. Should any further violence take place on their watch as overseers, wouldn’t that at least ethically make them the equivalent of accomplices to a crime?

    I agree. I believe that the Pharisaic churches may only start getting their response to domestic abuse ritht when some victim-survivor or her family (if she is dead at the abuser’s hand) successfully prosecute the church leaders for complicity with criminal violence before the fact.

    I am praying for some attorneys to be willing to prosecute such cases pro bono, as most survivors are in dire straits financially due to the tactics of the abusers which escalate intensely at separation and often drive the survivor into poverty.

  56. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Paterson’s wording (“she was being subject to some abuse”), using the imperfect tense, implies that this abuse was indeed ongoing.

    And what’s more, Paterson’s words have used the passive voice: ‘she was being subject to . . .” which totally airbrushes the husband out of the sentence. He is gramtically made invisible. This is a classic linguistic device used by the legal syatem and ecclesiastical authorities to minimise and obfuscate the abuser’s active role in perpetrating the abuse.

    Once you start paying attention to the use of the passive voice in domestic abuse discourse, you’ll see it all over the place.

  57. @ Kristin:
    Kristin, and A Cry For Justice we recognise that men can be victims of domestic abuse, and it isn’t always physical, just as abuse isn’t always physical with female victims either. We have some male survivors on our site who comment regularly and we have posts written by male survivors.

    That said, we also have comments submitted by men who are pretending to be victims but are actually perpetrators. We detect them and don’t publish them, or if we have published them initially we later block them when it becomes clear that they are perpetrators. The language of abusers is pretty easy to detect when you are attuned to it. And we have a tag on our blog for The Language Of Abusers, for those how are interested in up-skilling themselves in this regard.

    Hint for any bloggers who venture into the area of domestic abuse: you WILL receive comments from perpetrators who are masquerading as victims. There are so many perps out there and many of them are lurking on the internet looking for opportunities to sow their myths and excuses and keep society in general in the dark about the reality and severity of the pandemic of domestic abuse and domestic violence. It serves the perps to keep society dumbed down in this area: they can more easily win allies among family members, congregations, the justice system, the welfare system, government grant providers, etc. So it behoves us all to become much more canny about this subject and dispell the myths that perpetrators promulgate, so that it will be less easy for them to get away with what they are doing. BYSTANDERS UNITE, and EDUCATE YOURSELVES!

  58. K.D. wrote:

    I have two rules I must follow at my house…” Don’t beat, don’t cheat.”

    Nick K.D., while that's a good rule, I would like to put to you that it is not sufficient to prevent domestic abuse. Domestic abuse can and OFTEN does take place without any beating, any phsical violence at all. We need to stop talking about domestic abuse as if it is just 'beating' or 'battering'. I personally believe that we need to stop using the expression domestic violence, because that implies that physcial violence is a neccesary ingredient. Non-physical abuse can be extreme and life-destroying — by bringing about such a black hole of despair and fear that it leads to the victim's suicide or, at the least, chronic ill-health. We must never use expressions that make such victims feel invisible or 'not real victims'.

    [[MOD: Edit per request]]

  59. @ Kristin:
    I agree that, while the man is usually the perp in domestic violence, sometimes it is the woman. My mother didn’t so much physically assault my dad, because he is a big man. She did however throw objects around, through windows, and leave holes in the sheetrock when she did not get her way.

    My siblings and I, being smaller and weaker, were fair game for physical assault. In one incident in my preteen years, my mother sat on my back, grabbed my hair in her fists, and banged my head against the floor. She chased my sister around her bedroom beating her with a camel whip. (We lived in the Middle East) My father just stood in the doorway crying and asking her to stop. He was afraid of my mom.

    Now that we’re all grown- and my parents are divorced- the abuse from my mother continues verbally and emotionally. So . . . yeah. Sometimes the woman is the abuser.

  60. @ Kristin:
    AGREE there are men out there with no where to turn. My friend was being abused by his girlfriend. Good thing she left the country so he could escape. Not easy for others to do

  61. What I’ve never understood, but I’m a man, why do women stay or return to the abuser?

    Women’s who’ve never heard Paige Patterson preach stay with or return to their abusers.

    Women who don’t know a thing about John Piper or his Desiring God Ministry stay with or return to their abuser.

    Women who’ve never darkened the door of a Southern Baptist Church to hear a pastor preach about marital “hanging-in-there” stay with or return to their abuser.

    Women who would say “huh?” if you mentioned Calvinistas stay with or return to their abuser.

    There’s gotta be something in the female make-up that keeps them coming back.

    I don’t think you can blame this on pastors in the pulpit.

    I think it’s pretty superficial to blame the church for what women seem inclined to do all on their own (even against the advice of their girlfriends).

  62. Re the school that fired the teacher with the husband not obeying the court order:

    had they kept her on staff, and God forbid he came and shot a bunch of innocent kids, we’d be castigating them for not taking appropriate action. The school had to make a simply horrible choice between protecting the lives of the students and protecting the teacher economically.

    I sincerely hope they quietly and behind the scenes help her gain safe, suitable employment and/or provide her with income. But I do “get” the choice they had to make.

    We’ve faced similar situations at church and at employment. No matter how much you support the victim, you also have to protect the innocents.

    Sobering thought and should lead many men and women to be more cautious in the early stage of a relationship. Who you marry or form a bond with may haunt you for the rest of your life.

  63. Oh, Alonzo – how much you have to learn. The female make up? There are also many male abuse victims who stay as well. If you would take the time to read Judith Herman’s book on Trauma, you will learn much of what you desperately need to get hold of. Terror, abuse, psychological torture or whatever you want to call it, has its own evil dynamics that fully explain why abuse victims “stay” and don’t “just throw the bum out.” And in addition to the psychological reasons (such as the Stockholm Syndrome), there are the practical issues of lack of finances or fear for the children.

    No, you don’t have to put full blame upon churches and pastors. But where the blame lays, we place it and there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to how pastors and churches are mis-handling abuse cases, both sexual and domestic. And they have no excuse. They are entrusted with “the oracles of God” and yet they are at best ignorant of that Word or at worst they twist that Word.

    Alonzo, I don’t know if you are a professing Christian or not, but surely if you are then you need to come to grips with your attitude about “the female makeup.” That is one of the key factors in why abuse is being covered up in our churches.

  64. Kristin wrote:

    To throw a wrench in the discussion, I have some family members where the wife is the abuser both verbally and physically. If you think there is a stigma against battered wives how about battered husbands? He has literally no where to turn. He can’t fight back (even simply restraining her from hitting him) because it will land him in jail in a second. She uses “calling the police” as a means to keep control over him, because they always take her word over his. His only choices are to walk out on the family or just endure the abuse. He has contacted abuse care groups but since he is male they won’t let him come. I can only imagine what a Calvinista would tell him.
    So be careful not to equate “standing for the oppressed” with “standing with the stereotypically oppressed.” There are men hurting out there too.

    Yep! The Cry for Justice blog deals with that too. There is a commenter over there named Martin who has quite a testimony of abuse from his ex wife. (He is now married to a wonderful Godly woman.) Jeff S has been given the treatment by churches too.

  65. Let me, please,suggest some observations and conjectures.

    What evidence has been presented to show that Dr. Patterson was telling the truth, or even knew the whole truth? I do not know about the veracity of Dr. Patterson’s “preacher tales”, but there are a lot of things said from the pulpit that are not exactly accurate, it seems to me. As Nick had said about the need for witnesses…

    Dr. Patterson probably would not have told the tale had it not been a rarity, in his opinion. Even if it is true and accurate, it must be rare or it would not be an interesting story. The story also plays up the teller of the story as having done something laudable. Where are the stories of the same advice having been given with deleterious results?

    It seems to me that the people so say things like this, and preach the theology which condones abusive behavior, have a ready market. Apparently there are a lot of people who listen to this, attend that kind of church, throw their money in that sort of collection plate, and believe themselves right to do so. I wonder if some of this would not dry up if not for the money to be made by preaching this kind of thing.

    As long as a denomination believes sola scriptura there is room for theological improvisation. And if that same group understands “priesthood of the believer(s)” to mean “theological competence of the believer(s)” then the barn doors are wide open for ignorance and deception and outright chicanery to thrive. Provided, of course, that there is a market for it. IMO the people who sit in those pews, and finance this mess, and remain silent bear some of the blame for the fact that it thrives in some religious circles. Does not the scripture say that we will all answer the matter of where were we when “I” was hungry, naked, in prison…” Remaining silent, or going along to get along, is not an option.

  66. @ Alonzo “Zo” Thomas:
    Alonzo,

    What Jeff Crippen said above.

    My addition is that pastors are endowed with a certain authority. What they say has weight. When they say the wrong thing, that adds weight to the wrong side. When they say the right thing, that does not add weight to the wrong side but instead puts that weight where it belongs – on the right side. When they don’t say what is right, they deny their weight to the right side, which only aids wrong: the classic case of good men doing nothing.

    However, many pastors, such as Patterson, are not only unhelpful but are anti helpful because of advice like his. Pastors need to change their message from condemning divorce to condemning the sin that causes divorce. In this case, abuse. They need to preach this condemnation and they need to practice it too.

    I do hope you would agree that spousal abuse is wrong and should be condemned as such.

    Do you agree that spousal abuse is wrong and should be condemned as such?

  67. Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:

    What I’ve never understood, but I’m a man, why do women stay or return to the abuser?
    Women’s who’ve never heard Paige Patterson preach stay with or return to their abusers.
    Women who don’t know a thing about John Piper or his Desiring God Ministry stay with or return to their abuser.
    Women who’ve never darkened the door of a Southern Baptist Church to hear a pastor preach about marital “hanging-in-there” stay with or return to their abuser.
    Women who would say “huh?” if you mentioned Calvinistas stay with or return to their abuser.
    There’s gotta be something in the female make-up that keeps them coming back.

    There seems to be something is a lot of women (Harley Quinn Syndrome? Charm of a Sociopath?) that goes head-over-heels for a user and abuser. Nothing triggers the “OOOOOO! MY SOULMATE! HE’S SO (gasp) EXCITING!” reaction like a user and abuser.

  68. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:
    What I’ve never understood, but I’m a man, why do women stay or return to the abuser?
    Women’s who’ve never heard Paige Patterson preach stay with or return to their abusers.
    Women who don’t know a thing about John Piper or his Desiring God Ministry stay with or return to their abuser.
    Women who’ve never darkened the door of a Southern Baptist Church to hear a pastor preach about marital “hanging-in-there” stay with or return to their abuser.
    Women who would say “huh?” if you mentioned Calvinistas stay with or return to their abuser.
    There’s gotta be something in the female make-up that keeps them coming back.
    There seems to be something is a lot of women (Harley Quinn Syndrome? Charm of a Sociopath?) that goes head-over-heels for a user and abuser. Nothing triggers the “OOOOOO! MY SOULMATE! HE’S SO (gasp) EXCITING!” reaction like a user and abuser.

    I disagree Headless. No one man or woman likes to get the crap beat out of them. Women who are abused can’t believe it is happening at first. Denial. They blame themselves for it, they believe at first they set the husband off. It’s like a child who can’t believe their parent is abusing them, but think they did something wrong. And that is the husband’s excuse. IT has nothing to do with Harequin or romance or the bad boy syndrome. It has everything to do with brainwashing. Patterson and Piper just enforce that brainwashing.

    Religion is dangerous at times, in that if you are not taught the love and grace of God are taught from an early age of God’s wrath if you disobey his commands. Unfortunately those commands come from ministers who distort them.God does not want or condone abuse of anyone, women or children. He does not expect you to die or be maimed with broken bones and black eyes to win a husband to Christ. That is sick and wrong thinking. But women are taught to obey the minister as if he is a direct line from God. That cannot be further from the truth.

  69. Jeff Crippen wrote:

    Alonzo, I don’t know if you are a professing Christian or not, but surely if you are then you need to come to grips with your attitude about “the female makeup.” That is one of the key factors in why abuse is being covered up in our churches.

    Jeff, even PsychToday (hardly a Christian publication) wonders how come women get CHOSE to get involved with serial killers.
    “In her post, “Women Who Love Serial Killers,” PT blogger, Katherine Ramsland, offers some suggestions about why some women can be so attracted to, or hopelessly beguiled by, the most terrifying of human predators. At first, she provides explanations from the women themselves, women who actually married these dangerously unhinged criminals. Their reasons (somewhat elaborated here) include the assumptions that:

    their love can transform the convict: from cunning and cruel, to caring, concerned, and compassionate. (more in the article).
    I think there’s a clear difference between the male and female makeup.

  70. Kristin wrote:

    To throw a wrench in the discussion, I have some family members where the wife is the abuser both verbally and physically. If you think there is a stigma against battered wives how about battered husbands? He has literally no where to turn. He can’t fight back (even simply restraining her from hitting him) because it will land him in jail in a second. She uses “calling the police” as a means to keep control over him, because they always take her word over his.

    Dr Laura used to go on that subject a lot. There ARE abusive women and abused men out there; maybe less often than abusive men and abused women, but they exist. False accusations of abuse (up to and including sexual abuse) are a known divorce strategy to secure custody and win in court.

    Further confusing the whole issue is that abusive men and women tend towards very different “fighting styles”. Because of men’s greater size and physical strength, they have the advantage in any physical violent confrontation. (At least before Sam Colt and his Equalizer.) As a result, men tend to be more direct and physically violent in a fight; women more indirect, using passive-aggression and manipulation. (Including the manipulator’s trick of goading the other using passive-aggressive tricks to where the other gets physical and gets all the blame. Or the murder-mystery plot of a woman manipulating another man into killing her husband.) A man will come up and shoot you in the face, a woman will smile sweetly and call you “dear” while she puts poison in your food or drink behind your back. (This does not lead to trust between the sexes.)

  71. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    My mother grew up in a very popular Southern Baptist church in Texas. Her father was a leader there, and her mother was also very involved. Her parents were well respected within that church.

    Their home was also full of domestic violence. Sadly, the church doesn’t have any ‘long-term’ fruit in this area. Domestic violence is NOT a ‘very specific circumstance’, but a pattern of behavior. The church has been told this TIME and TIME AGAIN! Yet, they refuse to accept it. They would rather deal with the specific circumstance, and not the habitual pattern.

    SURE its easier to deal with domestic violence the way Patterson did in the audio. Its a ugly story with a happily ever after ending. He presented this magical, and awesome ‘instant’ change within this family. He was aware of the pattern, because the wife came to him about it. The husband’s cries at the alter at the very end were PROOF his way of thinking is biblical. You know what that really is? Spiritual pixie dust!

    Why do churches use such unrealistic stories as ‘proof’ their way works? Its always the miracle stories they are attracted to, but never use the ones that don’t end like their ‘doctrine’ says it should. They never speak of those stories, because they don’t line up with their message. If I may use a cultural term here – they ‘spin’ the gospel.

    I think they know in the back of their minds that such a family dynamic is going to take up loads of time and resources…and its going to get ugly. I have to be honest here, and tell you some of these spoiled rotten pastor’s would be totally over their heads if they actually stepped out into an actual dangerous mission field – for them personally. You know the ones we read about that aren’t surrounding with ‘amen’ types of crowds? The ones most realize they can’t manipulate their reality to make sound better than it is.

    My Aunt and Uncle were Baptist Missionaries, and if they applied their ‘happily ever after’ Gospel to their mission fields? There is a good chance they would have been killed. They had to met those people where they lived, and in their culture. They wouldn’t have been effective if they didn’t. They knew the dangers even when they did. ‘Spinning’ of the Gospel wouldn’t work AT ALL! Yet, for some reason it ‘should’ here.

    Paige Patterson manipulated a story – and a family he came into contact with – as a means to his end with his doctrine. That’s all he did – lets be honest here. If all it takes is sincere prayer in life to truly bring about ‘change’ in domestic violence circumstances? My mother wouldn’t have been as damaged as he was. It traumatized her whole existence. She is a woman of strong faith, and prayer warrior…yet she continued to be abused because people preferred the miracle stories better than the reality. My grandfather was a dangerous man, and yet he was REALLY good at presenting the show he knew they expected him too. My grandmother was a faithful, submissive, and wonderfully supportive wife. She did everything that was asked of her, and yet he never stopped hitting.

    You know what was really sad? After he passed away, and she was riddled with Alzheimer’s? She blossomed. She had that delight in life that the Paige Patterson’s of this world say you will have if you do it just right. She was finally allowed this after he died. She couldn’t have it living in a danger zone. She was refused dignity, and honor because the spin of the Gospel needed to keep proper place in Church. She had the lifestyle in the believing sense, but she had no one to share the burden with her in ‘human’ sense.

    I now see the damage it caused all their lifes, and mine as well. I don’t trust to many church people because of the ‘spin’, but I can acknowledge their faith. My life – and those of my family – reflect that reality very well. The spin causes blinders, and we must acknowledge it – they HAVE to take them off. Life is ugly at times even if we do everything right. lol Jesus did everything right, and look what happened to him? I realize the purpose of his death, but if the theory presented at church is correct? His purpose would have been fulfilled if he died of natural causes, because after all he did everything RIGHT! lol I know my own spin…what can I say!

    The churches today would be more effective, and the word of God would be heard more often if they just could deal with the reality of people’s lifes. Their spin will be their doom.

  72. Virginia Knowles wrote:

    Debbie, can you post a link to your blog article?

    Except for the wayback machine, where it can be found, I no longer have my blog. I had to delete it due to spam I could not get rid of. It’s one of the first articles I wrote in 2008 I believe, possibly June? Go to the wayback machine and type in debbiekaufman.wordpress.com

    I found it on the wayback machine. June 8, 2008. I hope this link will take you to it.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080828090206/http://debbiekaufman.wordpress.com/2008/06/

  73. Why does the abused girlfriend stay?

    I was a victim of severe emotional abuse from a mentally ill fiance about 30 years ago when I was in college. I stayed with him as long as I did for many reasons. I was very young. I was insecure and needing “love” at any cost. I had moved halfway across the country to live near him and was too proud to admit I had made a mistake. I felt I could help him, and that my commitment to him was a sign of godly Christian love. I was afraid he would hurt himself if I broke up with him.

    Finally, I heard a quote in one of my business management classes: “The difference between efficiency and effectiveness is that efficiency is doung things the right way and effectiveness is doing the right thing.” Lightbulb moment. No amount of fixing would work. It was a WRONG relationship. I broke up with him the same day. Later on I gave him another chance but he started coming on strong with domineering claims of leading me spiritually. I finally told him to bug off. He was married less than two months later and has been divorced twice.

    Looking back I am grateful for a few people who tried to wake us up to the dysfunction of our relationship. I wish I had listened earlier, but it DID help eventually. I guess I say that to encourage those whose interventions don’t seem to make a difference at the time.

  74. May wrote:

    However, on discussing it with an elder, I was shocked at something he said. His words were: ‘You don’t know what she did to provoke him. There are two sides to the story’. What do people think of this comment?

    Say that no matter what someone does, it is not ok to hit. I’ve spent years repeating this mantra to children. That one needs to say that to an adult means something is terribly wrong with him/her. That an elder needs to be reminded of it is pathetic.

  75. Victorious wrote:

    An Attorney, excellent advice. It should be noted, however, that leaving is the most dangerous time for a victim of dv. If he was angry before, he’ll be even more angry at this action on her part.
    Also worthy of mentioning is that protective orders are only effective if the abuser respects the law. It’s only a piece of paper otherwise.
    I strongly advise safe houses/shelters as opposed to family or friends. I was personally involved in a case where the father was fatally shot for harboring the abuser’s wife. The wife was shot as well but survived.

    That’s what happened in Los Angeles over the weekend and led off all the local news-feeds yesterday morning. Except it was a blade instead of bullets. She left, he exploded and tracked her down, sharpened steel trumps piece of paper. Wife is in the morgue with 20-30 knife holes in her, husband is in the slammer facing murder charges.

  76. Patrice, my mantra with my kids: “No matter what he says or does or how you feel about it, you must not hurt him.” Not that they’ve always listened, of course. 🙂

  77. @ Alonzo “Zo” Thomas:

    To say that some women attach themselves to abusive men is one thing. To infer that all women who are in an abusive relationship are “choosing” to be there is just going way beyond.

    I don’t understand why you are focusing your comments on the victims of abuse instead of on the abuser?

    No one is denying that there are many reasons, including past experiences, why people get into and stay in abusive relationships. The point is — pastors should be in the group of people that help the abused to be set free and have a healthy view of themselves. Pastors should not be in the group of people that tell abused people to stay where they are, thereby not respecting who they as beings made in God’s image.

  78. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Nick-
    It is not counterintuitive to tell a woman to go back to an abuser. It is not Christian. It is not Jesus.

    It is worldly, and cowardly, and easy. It didn’t cost Patterson time. It didn’t cost him the humiliation of walking around with black eyes. It didn’t cost him any pain. It didn’t cost him any position in his community.

    Counterintuitive is standing up to power, connecting the helpless with help, and standing with a victim against an abuser. That is Jesus.

  79. Hannah Thomas wrote:

    Paige Patterson manipulated a story – and a family he came into contact with – as a means to his end with his doctrine.

    Not “doctrine” — IDEOLOGY.

    And reality cannot be allowed to interfere with Purity of Ideology, Comrade.

  80. Barbara Roberts wrote:

    Non-physical abuse can be extreme and life-destroying — by bringing about such a black hole of despair and fear that it leads to the victim’s suicide or, at the least, chronic ill-health.

    Yes! My ex said cruel things to/about me for 18 years, sometimes getting in my face but never touching. In the last 3-4 years of the marriage, I was breaking down and twice pounded him on the chest and also a few times threw things (phone, plate of food) at him.

    I felt terribly ashamed and…well, plain filthy for doing that until (later) my lovely therapist helped me understand that it was a defensive gesture, inappropriate and without function but not aggression with malice, as his (mere) words were. So it all depends on the power differential and how it’s being used, verbal (mental/spiritual) or physical.

  81. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    But that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

    Oh, Nick… theoretically, yes. In reality: once in a blue moon.

    *nobody* should “counsel” an abused woman to stay with their abuser, no matter who the person giving the “advice” happens to be.

    Patterson’s FAIL here – well, the woman could have been killed. He’s not living in the real world, imo.

  82. Eyes in the Pew wrote:

    Counterintuitive is standing up to power, connecting the helpless with help, and standing with a victim against an abuser. That is Jesus.

    That was the priest (now retired due to a chronic illness) who supervised my catechism class back in the Eighties. According to the story, this short, slightly-built, priest backed down an abusive husband twice his size, roaring like a tornado at what the abuser had done to his wife.

  83. Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:

    I think there’s a clear difference between the male and female makeup.

    Zo: In my experience as a psychologist and as an attorney, and in business and politics as well, I can tell you that there is more variability in each gender than there is between the genders. That is, there is a huge overlap in any distribution you could find in data, except for XY chromosome and genitalia. For example, there is an overlap in the amount of testosterone in blood samples from adult men and women! And in personality traits, mental abilities, etc., it is impossible to tell from any data point, whether a person is male or female.

    Either your experience is very limited, or you interpret everything and everyone through preconceived notions of gender characteristics. I have a friend who could re-educate you. Gorgeous woman, feminine as could be, beautiful voice, relatively petite, can preach with the best Pentecostal, and served in the military in Iraq and then was a very successful drill sergeant, who could do hand-to-hand with any man and win that fight.

  84. I’m really glad to see TWW featuring this book. I’m sad I haven’t been able to participate in the discussion due to starting a new job that has made me very busy.

    And to those who have mentioned male survivors, this is definitely something we think is important at ACFJ and one reason that Jeff and Barbara have made me an editor and contributor on the blog.

    Abuse is abuse whether te perpetrator is male or female.

  85. .
    For anyone who has suffered “Spiritual Abuse”- and “church” is a dirty word

    Thabiti Anyabwile of “The Gospel Coalition” posted this yesterday.

    “Should We Stop Saying, “The Church Hurt Me”?”
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/06/17/should-we-stop-saying-the-church-hurt-me/

    Sounds to me like he is putting some of the blame on the victims.
    And protecting his domain…
    The 501 (c) 3, no-profit, tax deductible, Religious Corporation, the IRS calls church.

    But then again, I could be wrong – Because “The Church Hurt Me”
    And I’m probably mis-understanding a “Senior Pastor” who would never think to
    “Exercises Authority” like the gentiles – Or “Lord it over God’s heritage.”
    (Much Sarcasm) 😉
    —————-

    And at the end he has his
    “My Simple Plea to the Person “Hurt By the Church”

    1. Take your pain to the Lord…

    2. Take your heart to the ones who actually offended you and seek reconciliation…

    3. Stop saying, “The church hurt me.” It’s affecting your heart…

    4. Do realize that not every church hurt you and people are not “all the same…

    5. Live in hope. Your Lord is also Lord of the Church. He cares for your brokenness…

    —————

    I’d offer some other possibilities to Thabiti – But he has banned me from his blog. 😉

    I already do NOT trust pastor/leader/reverends – Many Reasons…
    Or the 501 (c), Religious Corporations, the IRS calls church.
    And Thabiti Anyabwile is NOT helping in my recovery. 😉

    Maybe some one here might have something to add to

    “Should We Stop Saying, “The Church Hurt Me”?”

  86. Patrice wrote:

    Yes! My ex said cruel things to/about me for 18 years, sometimes getting in my face but never touching. In the last 3-4 years of the marriage, I was breaking down and twice pounded him on the chest and also a few times threw things (phone, plate of food) at him.

    Like I said above, the passive-aggressive trick of goading the victim into physical violence. (Like a three-year-old in a car seat running his finger half an inch from the other kid going “I’m NOT touching you! I’m NOT touching you!”) Hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month until the victim can’t take it any more and lashes back, preferably in public. Which automatically makes the victim the abuser, a fact which will be publicized by the REAL abuser turned Poor Poor Innocent Victim.

    (I grew up with a sociopath for a sibling. I am VERY familiar with this shtick. Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year….)

  87. May wrote:

    However, on discussing it with an elder, I was shocked at something he said. His words were: ‘You don’t know what she did to provoke him. There are two sides to the story’. What do people think of this comment?

    This comment seems to suggest that if the wife did something it somehow absolves or lessens the fault of the husband for hitting her. There’s a difference between accepting personal responsibility and accepting causal responsibility. Perhaps his wife said something really nasty that set him off. Wife is responsible before God for the content of her words, but that does not make her responsible or “partially to blame” for his response of a punch in the eye. So even if she did “provoke” him it doesn’t minimize the severity of his crime. Even so, it is really just a symptom of major underlying problems.

    This is why the solution to abusive relationships is first of all getting out – or at least separation. You don’t continue to mix explosive chemicals and just pray they don’t explode.

  88. Kristin wrote:

    This comment seems to suggest that if the wife did something it somehow absolves or lessens the fault of the husband for hitting her.

    Especially if the abusive husband has been passive-aggressively goading her as I described above. She snaps first, and that absolves him of all blame because “SHE DID IT FIRST!”

    Just like serial killers and pedophiles, we only hear of the abusers who slipped up and got caught.

  89. About the Thabiti Anyabwile blog – “Should We Stop Saying, “The Church Hurt Me”?”
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/06/17/should-we-stop-saying-the-church-hurt-me

    Here is someone who understands – A wonderful response rom Arthur Sido…

    Or perhaps people say that because…they have been hurt by “the church”. Your solution seems to be suck it up, shut up and pay up. What we call “the church”, a religious organism that bears little resemblance to what we see in Scripture, is unfortunately like many institutions in that it is primarily concerned with self-preservation so people who don’t fit in or who ask the wrong sorts of questions that rock the boat find themselves on the receiving end of wrath from those with a vested financial incentive to maintain the status quo. You can stick your head in the religious sand and pretend this doesn’t happen but that doesn’t change the fact that a great many people truly have been wounded by “the church” and the defenders of the status quo and many of them have walked away from organized religion.

  90. @ Barbara Roberts:

    I got a second copy of A Cry for Justice this weekend. I was showing a copy to one of my friends, and she asked me ‘what profit is in your thinking about this issue?’. I told her it was for the other young women in my former church, and it is for the little girl I once was. With so much violence against women and children in the world, I owe this to other Christians and to the world. You know, until I started reading up about spiritual abuse, I never realized how much abuse is happening so close to me.

  91. Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:

    What I’ve never understood, but I’m a man, why do women stay or return to the abuser?

    There are multiple and complex reasons why women stay with abusers and go back to them after separation. Please read the article below. It will help you stop ascribing the cause to the ‘female makeup’.

    And by the way, you probably didn’t realise it, but it is a victim-blaming statement to say “it is something in the female makeup that makes them go back to abusers.” I realise you are genuinely asking for understanding and were not seeking to blame the victims. I hope you read this article.

    http://www.notunderbondage.com/resources/WhyDidntYouLeave.html

  92. Patrice wrote:

    My ex said cruel things to/about me for 18 years, sometimes getting in my face but never touching. In the last 3-4 years of the marriage, I was breaking down and twice pounded him on the chest and also a few times threw things (phone, plate of food) at him.

    I felt terribly ashamed and…well, plain filthy for doing that until (later) my lovely therapist helped me understand that it was a defensive gesture, inappropriate and without function but not aggression with malice, as his (mere) words were. So it all depends on the power differential and how it’s being used, verbal (mental/spiritual) or physical.

    Patrice: yes. Your therapist was right.

  93. Barbara Roberts wrote:

    Domestic abuse can and OFTEN does take place without any beating, any phsical violence at all. We need to stop talking about domestic abuse as if it is just ‘beating’ or ‘battering’.

    Your view of domestic abuse casts a wide net. Let’s see we can have physical abuse (he hit me), emotional abuse (he yelled at me), financial abuse (he won’t give me money to buy new furniture), spiritual abuse (he disagrees with my understanding of scripture), sexual abuse ( he wants sex and I don’t), psychological abuse (he plays head games), etc. It can mean just about anything!

  94. Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:

    eff, even PsychToday (hardly a Christian publication) wonders how come women get CHOSE to get involved with serial killers.
    “In her post, “Women Who Love Serial Killers,” PT blogger, Katherine Ramsland, offers some suggestions about why some women can be so attracted to, or hopelessly beguiled by, the most terrifying of human predators.

    Alonzo, a word of warning. Psycholgists receive little or no training in domestic abuse in their college courses. Same for all mental health professions. There is so much ignorance out there it is appalling. We have heard countless stories on our blog from people who went to psychologists and counsellors (secular, Christian) and were given appalling advice from these so called professionals. Some counsellors are getting it right, but they are in the minority, and they have usually had a wake-up call to jolt them into realising that they NEED SPECIAL TRAINING in domestic abuse.

    The jolt can come from knowing a victim who has been severely maltreated by their spouse, and realising that you, the professional have been making mistakes in how you have been dealing with these cases.
    Sometimes it comes from a situation arising in the professional’s own close family or friends. And sometimes the professional can wake up by realising that they are being abused by their OWN SPOUSE. Yes, it happens. That’s how ill-equipped professionals can be at identifying abuse, and it’s partly because their initial training does not cover this topic.

    All that’s to say that any article in Psychology Today may or may not be good, depending on how truly awake the writer is to the dynamics of domestic abuse. I haven’t read the article you referred to, but I’ve read scores of articles by psychologist which purport to be explaining the dynamics of domestic abuse but which use victim-blaming language. It sickens me.

    The thing is, very few professionals are willing to come off their pedestals and actually LEARN HUMBLY from the victim-survivors about what does and does not help. We survivors are willing and keen to educate people, but most people don’t want to listen to us because we are survivors . . . so hey, we must have an axe to grind, mustn’t we? And we can’t be trusted because there was supposedly something defective in our makeup that led to us being abused in the first place.

    It’s the ultimate catch 22. Blame the victim = no need to learn from the victim. And the psychologist who claim to be ‘learning from the victims’ by researching what victims have to say are not worth much, IMO, until they can couch their conclusions in Non-Victim-Blaming language.

  95. Joe wrote:

    Your view of domestic abuse casts a wide net. Let’s see we can have physical abuse (he hit me), emotional abuse (he yelled at me), financial abuse (he won’t give me money to buy new furniture), spiritual abuse (he disagrees with my understanding of scripture), sexual abuse ( he wants sex and I don’t), psychological abuse (he plays head games), etc. It can mean just about anything!

    Joe, I suspect you are an abuser.
    You are misrepresenting my view of domestic abuse, in order to ridicule it. Classic tactics of an abuser.

    Our definition of domestic abuse is not just that it can be expressed in many ways (social, financial, spiritual, sexual, emotional/verbal/psychogical, physical, etc. But that it is a PATTERN OF CONDUCT designed to OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN CONTROL and POWER over the other person. I will not engage with you further on this Joe.

  96. Hannah Thomas wrote:

    Domestic violence is NOT a ‘very specific circumstance’, but a pattern of behavior.

    Let me be very clear here: the “specific circumstance” whereof I spake was not the abuse but the case of this one particular woman (one among many victims of domestic abuse the world over). It is precisely because abuse follows a very well-established and insidious pathology that it would need to be very unusual (indeed, a “specific”) circumstances to justify advising someone to stay put.

    By the same token, I did not imply that Patterson’s story was the Biblical Pattern™. For that matter, I don’t even believe a biblical pattern is a formula – it’s simply the default option if the Holy Spirit is not doing or saying something exceptional. The default option is not to lay burdens on a person, especially one who is unsafe in their own home, that they can’t carry, nor expose them to danger that they can’t face, boldy, and of their own volition.

  97. Barbara Roberts wrote:

    Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:
    eff, even PsychToday (hardly a Christian publication) wonders how come women get CHOSE to get involved with serial killers.
    “In her post, “Women Who Love Serial Killers,” PT blogger, Katherine Ramsland, offers some suggestions about why some women can be so attracted to, or hopelessly beguiled by, the most terrifying of human predators.
    Alonzo, a word of warning. Psycholgists receive little or no training in domestic abuse in their college courses. Same for all mental health professions. There is so much ignorance out there it is appalling. We have heard countless stories on our blog from people who went to psychologists and counsellors (secular, Christian) and were given appalling advice from these so called professionals.

    Like that one retired FBI Profiler (John Douglas?) who penned all those True Crime memoirs some years ago. He recounted several cases where a serial killer was seeing a court-mandated psychiatrist (perp was court-mandated for psych treatment but had not been discovered as a serial killer) while racking up kills. He’d show up for his court-mandated appointment, show every indication he was getting better and being cured, then go out for his next kill or rape. Conning the shrink all the way.

    Retired profiler recounted one case of this before a professional assembly of shrinks, and was sought out after his lecture by a very shaken shrink — the one who the serial killer in the case had been conning. Shrink was very shaken and blamed himself for the kills done while perp was under his watch.

  98. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    By the same token, I did not imply that Patterson’s story was the Biblical Pattern™.

    So often today, “Biblical(TM)” or “Scriptural(TM)” or “Gospelly(TM)” is just God-talk to bring God in on your side as your Enforcer and weapon.

  99. Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:

    I think there’s a clear difference between the male and female makeup.

    Zo, see reply by An Attorney at 1:03 p.m.

    The problem with the notion of “a clear difference between the male and female makeup” is that males are viewed (as Aristotle viewed them – this is nothing new) as the “norm,” and the idea that there is “a male makeup” and “a female makeup” very quickly devolves into the idea that females are somehow not fully human beings.

    Most reasons people stay with abusers have to do with the socialization they experience growing up, the internalization of all the messages about what it means to be male or female, verbal and non-verbal, that bombard people in a culture and in their families.

    In this sense, “biblical” church culture can quite easily mirror secular culture.

    If someone wants to know what people “in the world” think of women, all they have to do is study what in popular culture generates the most money. Begin with advertisements, then go on to movies and music. And don’t forget that pornography is the biggest money generator on the internet. And then start making the connections between all of that and what some Christians teach about gender essentialism (“Women are _____. Men are _____. No exceptions.”) No wonder some church cultures tolerate abuse. The same lies about the worth of people are being told and believed, only in churches they have the adjective “biblical” attached to them. But there really is **no difference**.

  100. Barbara Roberts wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    the abusive husband has been passive-aggressively goading
    Kristen, just a tip: we think that ‘passive aggressive’ is not a good term in this field; the better term is ‘covert aggressive’.

    OK. Just “passive-aggressive” was the term I first heard to describe it, and several of my family had honed it to a fine art. It’s also the term used by my writing partner (the burned-out country preacher) who encounters it all the time.

  101. dainca wrote:

    Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:

    I think there’s a clear difference between the male and female makeup.

    Zo, see reply by An Attorney at 1:03 p.m.
    The problem with the notion of “a clear difference between the male and female makeup” is that males are viewed (as Aristotle viewed them – this is nothing new) as the “norm,” and the idea that there is “a male makeup” and “a female makeup” very quickly devolves into the idea that females are somehow not fully human beings.

    I also think there’s a difference. Unlike Aristotle, I also think there’s a lot of overlap and exceptions. Not so much Men are from Mars and Women from Venus as from adjacent parts of the same planet.

    In this sense, “biblical” church culture can quite easily mirror secular culture.
    If someone wants to know what people “in the world” think of women, all they have to do is study what in popular culture generates the most money. Begin with advertisements, then go on to movies and music. And don’t forget that pornography is the biggest money generator on the internet. And then start making the connections between all of that and what some Christians teach about gender essentialism (“Women are _____. Men are _____. No exceptions.”)

    “Just like Porn, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”

    And being in Furry Fandom for 20 years, I have been exposed to a LOT of porn. As in the REAL stuff, not the watered-down examples you hear from a pulpit. Most preachers wouldn’t recognize the real stuff if it stood up in front of them and bit them in the face. And the ideas and tropes and expectations of porn can thus infiltrate Christians in our erotically-obsessed society.

    From preachers and activists who are just as sexually screwed-up as everybody else, just in the opposite direction, to Christian Purity Culture grooms who were bribed into saving themselves for marriage by the promise of barn-burning married sex (fulfilling their every fantasy 24/7/365) starting on their wedding night.

  102. Barbara Roberts wrote:

    The thing is, very few professionals are willing to come off their pedestals and actually LEARN HUMBLY from the victim-survivors about what does and does not help.

    Like they learned how to be Humble(TM) from Cee Jay?
    (Similar dynamic at work?)

  103. Barbara Roberts wrote:

    It’s the ultimate catch 22. Blame the victim = no need to learn from the victim. And the psychologist who claim to be ‘learning from the victims’ by researching what victims have to say are not worth much, IMO, until they can couch their conclusions in Non-Victim-Blaming language.

    Or we can learn from people like Lundy Bancroft, who learned about abuse from the abusers themselves. First class education right there.

  104. @ May:

    “His words were: ‘You don’t know what she did to provoke him. There are two sides to the story.’ What do people think of this comment?”

    See Patrick Stewart’s recent remarks for an excellent smackdown of the ignorant attitude exhibited by said elder (starting around 5:42, but the whole thing is worth watching). As if somehow the fact that she provoked him would make the abuse okay or excusable, which is what’s unintentionally (or intentionally?) implied in such a statement.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqFaiVNuy1k

  105. Sopwith wrote:

    Should the church be the first responder in any domestic violence situation?

    I don’t believe so Sopy. The church has not shown itself to be responsible enough in a human sense. It will put dogma ahead of the safety of women and their kids who are in very dangerous situations.

  106. I may have posted this before, but I think it’s important enough to say again. As the Director of an On-Call program at a women’s shelter years ago, I was required to attend a batterer’s group for those men who were court ordered to attend for a specified length of time.

    The leader asked a new attendee why he felt he had the right to batter his wife. He said, “no one ever told me I couldn’t; not my father, friends, or pastor. I didn’t know it was wrong.”

    I was appalled, but his response made me realize how important it is to clearly, explicitly speak out about this issue to anyone who has been identified as having abused his female partner/wife. Without a doubt this should apply to pastors.

  107. Barbara Roberts wrote:

    Joe, I suspect you are an abuser.

    Let’s walk back from this edge. This is very close to an accusation.

    No problem with the rest of your comment(s).

    GBTC

  108. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    Here is a link to the sermon by Bruce Ware, referred to in the comments(read the comments, interesting) in answer to a commenter.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20110102102507/http://www.dennyburk.com/bruce-ware%E2%80%99s-complementarian-reading-of-genesis/

    I think the sermon in question by Bruce Ware is the one I uploaded to Archive as well.

    http://archive.org/details/10ReasonsforAffirmingMaleHeadshipInTheCreatedOrder

    “”And husbands on their parts, because they’re sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged–or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches””

  109. @ dee:

    I think someone who witnesses this treatment should say something to the offender when it is occuring. The problem is, many people don’t want to get involved. They turn a blind eye. They might know the offender as a public figure (or not) and don’t want the possibility of personal risk to themselves for speeking to the situation. Sometimes the offended party rejects input from an outsider who speaks up. If it abuse continues for all to see, even after protest, I would call the authorities.

  110. @ Bridgetr

         Bridget,

    Hey, 

    Domestic violence presents the church with a complete opposite to the marriage  vow: ” to love, honor, and cherish” In order for the church to resume it’s position as an able ministry in the home, domestic tranquility must first be restored. And that may take authorities outside the church.

    Has the church considered continued domestic violence (as  I believe many cvil authorities have) as acceptable grounds for divorce?

    Making It A Type Of : “Think Twice Before Battery”  Solution ?

    ATB

    Sopy

  111. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month until the victim can’t take it any more and lashes back, preferably in public. Which automatically makes the victim the abuser, a fact which will be publicized by the REAL abuser turned Poor Poor Innocent Victim.

    Exactly. My ex told all our couples’ friends about it and they believed his victim-construction even though I made effort to explain it to each of them. They all completely rejected me, leaving me alone to care of our 6-yr old daughter while I was in the middle of a PTSD collapse (which had enraged my ex because I wasn’t tending him anymore). GAH! I still get teary remembering it.

    I hope your sociopathic sib is on a planet far far away from you.

  112. Patrice wrote:

    I hope your sociopathic sib is on a planet far far away from you.

    No contact in ten years. Though if I kick off, I am sure my executor will be hearing from his lawyers.

  113. Sopwith wrote:

    Has the church considered continued domestic violence (as I believe many cvil authorities have) as acceptable grounds for divorce?

    I understand there is a long-standing tradition that desertion and abuse are grounds for divorce or annulment. However, this probably got lost in the Sola Scriptura! chaos of the Reformation Wars.

  114. @ Barbara Roberts:

    Thanks for your observation about the ‘passive voice’. That is very interesting. In fact the entire phrase ‘she was being subject to some abuse’ sanitizes the whole thing. Disgusting.

    The other thing that was said to me about the woman’s husband was: ‘He has anger issues and he knows that. His anger got the better of him’. But isn’t that another form of trying to minimize the crime?

  115. @ Muff Potter:

    mot wrote:

    I do not understand why women do not leave the SBC in mass.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    a number of things play into it:

    • the notion of a “cross one must bear” (“And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple”)

    • a kind of satisfaction in the resistance, seeing it as an opportunity for big blessing & spiritual achievement (“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”)

    • who am I to complain after what Jesus went through (complete with all the imagery from films, like being whipped to shreds, hammers & spikes, blood blood blood, and he didnt resist or put up a fight)

    • being quiet & submissive & meek = godliness; being assertive and strong and decisive & self-protective doesn’t fit this model.

    • having the “married” badge is automatic platinum club membership with celebrity privileges in Club Church

  116. dee wrote:

    @ Sopwith: This is a debate going on about whether people should intervene when they see a Nigella situation in public.

    Sure.

    Q: Dee: “What would you do if you witnessed this (a Nigella situation) in a public setting?”

         Dee, 

    Hey, 

         In a situation like you describe here in this post: guy chokes woman public setting? Well, dialing 911, and becoming a witness is about the best I believe that I could do, without possibly endangering my own life, or facing criminal charges should one or both parties bring suit against me, due to my actions in this matter. As a rule, a private citizen getting involved in a public marital dispute is not wise, under the most favorable of conditions.

  117. Sopwith wrote:

    dee wrote:
    @ Sopwith: This is a debate going on about whether people should intervene when they see a Nigella situation in public.

    Sure.
    Q: Dee: “What would you do if you witnessed this (a Nigella situation) in a public setting?”
         Dee, 
    Hey, 
         In a situation like you describe here in this post: guy chokes woman public setting? Well, dialing 911, and becoming a witness is about the best I believe that I could do, without possibly endangering my own life, or facing criminal charges should one or both parties bring suit against me, due to my actions in this matter. As a rule, a private citizen getting involved in a public marital dispute is not wise, under the most favorable of conditions.

    I firmly believe in whatever level of intervention you can manage – whether that’s a ‘you okay love?’ to a woman in a pub that a man is hassling (& then calling over the bar man), to a ‘do you need help?’, which is what I would have asked Nigella. You don’t need to be obnoxious, just enough for people to realise it’s been noticed & you are watching. Scariest one ever was a guy SCREAMING at a tiny child…I worked for children’s services at the time, I was out with my dogs & I just walked up & said, very sympathetically ‘you okay mate? Do you need a bit of a break?’ Saying that, my job means I intervene in agressive situations on a regular basis & my risk assessment skills are strong – I would risk a thump, but none of the situations I’ve been in so far have set off all my alarms & have all been in public, in which case I would back off & ring Police.

  118. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    HUG, think about a trust instead of a will. The trust does not require a court action if it is in place before death and operational, with a post-death trustee identified. With no probate to be dealt with in court, it is unlikely that there will be an effective opportunity to sue. You can explicitly name the beneficiaries and any persons not to receive from the trust can also be named, plus, if the trustee has distributed the funds as soon as possible after you pass, anyone suing would have to sue the beneficiaries, which is not considered a nice thing to do, and likely to result in the plaintiff paying the legal fees of the trustee and beneficiaries.

  119. @ Sopwith:

    My response would be what one should do if dogs are fighting — throw cold water on them. It usually works. I have used it with children fighting and know of a case where it was used in a spouse abuse situation that was occurring in public. It worked, and no one is likely to succeed with either criminal charges or a civil suit for damages. (what damages?) Intervention to stop death or severe injury to a person is protected in most jurisdictions as long as the intervention is not excessive given the situation. Cold water clearly is not excessive.

  120. @ Beakerj

         Beakerj,

    Hey,

    As you know, this is not some cat stuck in a tree.  That would require the services of the Fire Department. 

    This is (if confirmed) public domestic violence. 

    I once abruptly grabbed the arm of a small child, who, under no apparent adult supervision, attempted, energetically to cross a crowded street. The action on my part was, although abrupt, viewed as possibly saving the child’s life. The child’s parent was appreciative. Never the less, had I called the authorities, the child’s mother would have possibly been viewed as negligent, and have been charged as such. My involvement was instinctive, as would any one in my place. 

    A similar case occurred with a young unattended child that proceeded to fall out of a grocery cart, while the parent was in the next isle. Again, I acted instinctively.  After the occurrence, I had to find the parent. Sad. 

         In an environment in which spirits are served, again, I would think twice about any action beyond dialing 911, should the situational intubation warrant it. 

    ATB

    Sopy

  121. Bridget wrote:

    @ dee:
    I think someone who witnesses this treatment should say something to the offender when it is occuring. The problem is, many people don’t want to get involved. They turn a blind eye. They might know the offender as a public figure (or not) and don’t want the possibility of personal risk to themselves for speeking to the situation. Sometimes the offended party rejects input from an outsider who speaks up. If it abuse continues for all to see, even after protest, I would call the authorities.

    I agree in theory, but in practice, there are cautions. My uncle was a deputy sheriff and he hated DV calls. He says they are the most dangerous calls officers make. His partner was shot and died in his arms when they were responding to a DV call – before they had even addressed the situation, they were just walking up the driveway.

    I was with a friend once, years ago, and we encountered a man holding his girlfriend up against the side of the building (as we exited the bar). My friend stepped in and told him to stop. He turned and came toward her in a threaatening manner and she said, “If you’re goiing to hit me, you better knock me out with the first blow because if you don’t I’m going to kick your a** into next week.” She could back that up, though. She was 6 feet tall and a black belt in Tai Kwan Do. He didn’t stop advancing though, until a group of about 6 cowboys came up behind my friend and made it clear they would be involved in the a** kicking.

    The thing is, the woman got mad at us for intervening. I know that intervening is important, but it is also wise to assess the situation and make sure you’re not getting into a situation beyond your ability to control and be physically safe. If there is more than one of you, that makes things much better. But I’ve got to say that advising women to wade into a public DV situation could cause them to end up in the hospital themselves. Calling the police or security and getting backup is always a good idea.

    That said, my instinct is still to wade in and to hell with the personal consequences. But I also know that is not always the wisest choice….

  122. Patrice wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month until the victim can’t take it any more and lashes back, preferably in public. Which automatically makes the victim the abuser, a fact which will be publicized by the REAL abuser turned Poor Poor Innocent Victim.

    Exactly. My ex told all our couples’ friends about it and they believed his victim-construction even though I made effort to explain it to each of them. They all completely rejected me, leaving me alone to care of our 6-yr old daughter while I was in the middle of a PTSD collapse (which had enraged my ex because I wasn’t tending him anymore). GAH! I still get teary remembering it.
    I hope your sociopathic sib is on a planet far far away from you.

    Even though I have cut off contact with my mother – five years now, I still have to remotely deal with this exact BS. My cousin was in the town were my mother lives a couple of weeks ago to visit her grandparents. She thought it would be nice, while there, to take my mother out to dinner. The best thing I can say about it is that at least now my cousin is a believer in my mother’s NPD. You see, after my cousin got home, she got and emial from my mother’s friend that none of the family know (of all things) asking why the family had abandoned my poor, sweet, innocent mother….gah.

  123. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Sopwith wrote:
    Has the church considered continued domestic violence (as I believe many cvil authorities have) as acceptable grounds for divorce?

    I understand there is a long-standing tradition that desertion and abuse are grounds for divorce or annulment. However, this probably got lost in the Sola Scriptura! chaos of the Reformation Wars.

    The church I grew up in…there were never, ever any grounds for divorce. Not adultery, not violence, not anything. And if perchance you had been divorced before joining the church, they would not marry you. Yeah, some things got lost along the way…..like mercy and compassion and justice.

  124. @ Jeannette Altes:

    I wasn’t advocating jumping in, or any kind of physical interaction, but a verbal response, after assessing the situation. Calling authorities would be the next course of action. Depending on the situation, calling authorities might be the first course of action.

  125. Sopwith wrote:

    Has the church considered continued domestic violence (as I believe many cvil authorities have) as acceptable grounds for divorce?

    Yes, some in the church have indeed said that domestic abuse is acceptable grounds for divorce. Some of the puritans argued this, and I argue it in my book Not Under Bondage. You can hear find sermons by Ps David Dykstra here, where he argues the same thing.

    https://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/pastor-david-dykstra-on-marriage-and-divorce-he-gets-it/

  126. May wrote:

    The other thing that was said to me about the woman’s husband was: ‘He has anger issues and he knows that. His anger got the better of him’. But isn’t that another form of trying to minimize the crime?

    Yes indeed. It is wrong to think of abuser’s problems as being ‘anger issues.’ Anger management programs are not recommended for domestic abuse perpetrators. Abusers manage their anger quite appropriately in the workplace, in church, and with extended family and friends. They mostly just let it out in private to the victim, but even there they are fully in control when they do it. They CHOOSE when to get angry, and they can switch it on and off as they chose. And besides, abusive anger (sometimes called “demonstration violence”) is only one of the many tactics available to abusers.

    Some abusers are explosively angry and violent in the early years of their abusive ‘careers’, but later they decide to not use abusive anger to control their victim, but rather much more subtle and covert tactics of abuse. Sometimes they do this after being mandated to attend behaviour change programs for perpetrators: they decide to pull back on their more criminal and overt tactics, and specialise instead in non-criminal and non-obvious kinds of abuse, which means it is much harder for the victim to help in the justice system.

  127. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    The thing is, the woman got mad at us for intervening.

    Sometimes women who are victims of abuse do not want intervention from bystanders or authorities. That is why one of the cardinal rules of DV service providers is “offer help, offer information and options to the victims, but let the victim chose what she wants to do and when. Some jurisdictions have mandatory arrest for perpetrators when police are called out for DV, but not all jurisdictions have that. There are pros and cons, I understand, with mandatory arrest.

    The woman who was with her partner outside the pub: she may not have been ready to even think about leaving him, let alone ready to take that step. She may have known that if the bystander challenged him and tried to stop him abusing her right then and there, she would have copped double or triple punishment from him later, in private. That is one reason why victims sometimes react negatively when bystanders try to stop the perpetrator abusing them in public.

    Offering help to the victim, warmly, courteously and gently, without coercion or judgement, is the best way to respond to the victim if you see a public incident.
    Also, it always helps to tell her, “It is not your fault. You are not to blame.” You can tell a victim that in a public setting, with kind eye contact and a warm voice. Your kindness and non-blaming of her will resonate deep in her soul, and will stay with her, maybe it will even be a kernel of truth that she will use to build her courage to one day leave.

    I carry wallet cards in my purse with the number of the DV hotline number and the DV service providers for my region. Offering one of these cards to the victim can be of immense help, maybe she won’t act on it soon, but she may act on it later. Many victims don’t realise that help is available, and those who realise that help IS available for DV, may not think of THEMSELVES as ‘a victim of domestic violence/abuse’.

    It is a monumental mind-shift to realise “I am being abused!” It took me ages and ages, even though I’d been in and out of the refuge several times, I still didn’t think of myself as ‘A Victim of Domestic Abuse’. Go figure! But this says a lot about the stigma and the shame that victims feel; it’s very hard to pop the bubble of thinking ‘my marriage isn’t THAT bad’. Because when you DO eventually come out of the fog and realise This is Abuse, you are facing so many hard decisions.

    And to separate and divorce is like running a gauntlet.
    And that’s an understatement.

  128. dee wrote:

    @ GuyBehindtheCurtain: Actually, Barbara is an expert in this area. I am inclined to let her comment stand.

    I was going to comment on that one, but since GBTC did I thought there was no need.

    Firstly, to be fair, Barbara has accepted GBTC’s request. And there is good reason for doing so.

    To say “abusers behave like this; you are behaving like this; therefore I suspect you are an abuser” is a basic logical error (the “fallacy of the converse”) regardless of one’s subject-matter expertise. “Logical error” means, in blunt terms, that we do not have evidence for suspecting Joe of being an abuser.

    So much for the arithmetic; back to the human side. We are dealing with an emotionally-charged topic here. (Indeed, it is a tribute to your readership that it has remained civil this far down the screen; on many blogs it would have been a nuclear flame-war long before now.)

    A few years ago here in Blighty – Newport, to be exact – following a campaign by the now-defunct News of the World to name and shame local paedophiles, someone (it is not known who) spray-painted “Paedo” on the front door of a local paediatrician. (Ironically, this story has itself taken on a life of its own and the incident is variously ascribed to a rampaging mob – there was no mob – and as being located in Portsmouth, where there were indeed anti-paedophile mobs which held their own lists of alleged paedophiles compiled from hearsay. At least five families known to be innocent were targeted.)

    Justice must be just.

  129. @ An Attorney:

    Sopy said: “In a situation like you describe here in this post: guy chokes woman public setting? Well, dialing 911, and becoming a witness is about the best I believe that I could do, without possibly endangering my own life, or facing criminal charges should one or both parties bring suit against me, due to my actions in this matter. As a rule, a private citizen getting involved in a public marital dispute is not wise, under the most favorable of conditions.”

    “Intervention to stop death or severe injury to a person is protected in most jurisdictions as long as the intervention is not excessive given the situation. ” -An Attorney

    As you know, in any public domestic abuse situation, the party in question is all ready over the top here.

    Are you advocating pouring a cold glass of ice water on an magnesium fire, perhaps?

    What?

    ….advocating public intervention, of a private citizen to stop death or severe injury? 

    hmmm…

    Discretion is strongly advised? 

    You betcha!

    Unless you are trained in combating such a situation (public domestic abuse), you might do more harm than good, possibly endangering all others present.

    This ‘offres d’emploi’ requires more than a glass of water? Savvy?

    ATB

    Sopy

  130. Bridget wrote:

    I wasn’t advocating jumping in, or any kind of physical interaction, but a verbal response, after assessing the situation. Calling authorities would be the next course of action.

    If there is a physical altercation of ANY kind or even a loud argument, ANYONE who interferes at any level must be prepared that the others may get violent with you. If you don’t understand this or are not prepared to defend yourself you need to just call 911 and start filming. And not let them see you do either.

  131. @ May:i think that elder needs to be educated. there is never, never, never a good excuse to hit your spouse. let me repeat: never never, never.

  132. Lynn wrote:

    If there is a physical altercation of ANY kind or even a loud argument, ANYONE who interferes at any level must be prepared that the others may get violent with you. If you don’t understand this or are not prepared to defend yourself you need to just call 911 and start filming. And not let them see you do either.

    Because no matter how much their hate and hostility towards each other, they could very well join forces and attack you with the same hate. Nothing brings unity and redirects the hate and hostility like an outside enemy presenting themselves. That’s why cops dread “domestic disturbance” calls.

    “Me against my brother;
    Me and my brother, united against my cousin;
    Me, my brother, and my cousin, united against the Other.”
    — Arab proverb about this phenomenon

  133. An Attorney wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    HUG, think about a trust instead of a will. The trust does not require a court action if it is in place before death and operational, with a post-death trustee identified. With no probate to be dealt with in court, it is unlikely that there will be an effective opportunity to sue.

    Already anticipated you. Set up a trust when I first made out a will around 10-15 years ago. I’m a little past due for an update and reshuffle, especially when (1) I heard that 401K/IRA money has to be treated differently than other forms of money to avoid tax problems (2) my PSA jumped earlier this year and (3) I lost contact with my backup executor over the years.

  134. nmgirl wrote:

    @ Alonzo “Zo” Thomas:i would tell you to read up on battered women’s syndrome and then i remembered, you don’t believe in psychology or psychiatry.

    A careful re-reading would show you I said no such thing in any of my comments.

    HERE is what I do think:

    A) I believe there are some world class Biblical Counselors out there. But surely not every one who has graduated from the program.

    B) I hold to common grace; God allowed man to invent aspirin, insulin and Zoloft. If you don’t take insulin, you’ll die. That’s not true of Aspirin and Zoloft.

    C) I believe in America we’re way over the top when it comes to psych meds.

    D) There are some excellent, secular mental health professionals out there. They can help you with some of the pains and trials in your life; they’re not likely to point you towards the Savior.

    E) The only book I can guarantee will never go out of print is the Bible. All others will sooner or later go out of print.

  135. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    no matter how much their hate and hostility towards each other, they could very well join forces and attack you with the same hate.

    May I gently point out that this picture may apply to people who have equal power and both hate each other. But in domestic abuse, the power is not equal: the perpetrator hates the one he is victimizing; the victim is AFRAID of the perpetrator. Yes, the victim may feel hatred or anger towards the pe, but fear is way more dominant than hatred in the victim’s mind.

  136. Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:

    http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/11/30/greater-odds-of-domestic-violence-for-two-income-couples/48389.html

    The reason why, according to the article:

    “When both male and females were employed, the odds of victimization were more than two times higher than when the male was the only breadwinner in the partnership, lending support to the idea that female employment may challenge male authority and power in a relationship,” said the researchers.”

    Bold added

  137. Bridget wrote:

    Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:
    http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/11/30/greater-odds-of-domestic-violence-for-two-income-couples/48389.html

    The reason why, according to the article:
    “When both male and females were employed, the odds of victimization were more than two times higher than when the male was the only breadwinner in the partnership, lending support to the idea that female employment may challenge male authority and power in a relationship,” said the researchers.”
    Bold added

    Statistically they’re saying domestic violence is higher in marriages where both partners work. They are ONLY OPINING that it’s the man’s fault. The study itself did not prove the problem was the men.

  138. @ Alonzo “Zo” Thomas:

    The language was “lending support to the idea” not “They are ONLY OPINING that it’s the man’s fault.”

    What point were you wanting to make with that link?

    Many families choose to have both partners work, while others have to have both partners work to stay afloat. Either way, it is not a sin for both partners to work. Working, itself, does not cause abuse.

  139. Barbara Roberts wrote:

    Yes indeed. It is wrong to think of abuser’s problems as being ‘anger issues.’

    Years ago a city councilor was arrested for hitting his girlfriend. The press kept saying he had a “drinking problem” I protested saying he has a “hitting problem” a lot of people drink and never hit.

  140. Barbara Roberts wrote:

    Sopwith wrote:

    “Has the church considered continued domestic violence (as I believe many cvil authorities have) as acceptable grounds for divorce?”

    Barbara you wrote: “Yes, some in the church have indeed said that domestic abuse is acceptable grounds for divorce. Some of the puritans argued this, and I argue it in my book Not Under Bondage. You can hear find sermons by Ps David Dykstra here, where he argues the same thing.
    https://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/pastor-david-dykstra-on-marriage-and-divorce-he-gets-it/

         Barbara,

    Hey,

    Continued domestic abuse presents a polar opposite in regards to the marriage vow: “to love, honor, and cherish.” 

    I would argue that it is this incompatibility that presents a strong inclination towards favoring a divorce option under these continuing conditions. 

    The marital relation is based upon an pre-established marital commitment, and an overall trust; both of which are extinguished with continued domestic abuse.

    ATB

    Sopy

  141. Bridget wrote:

    Many families choose to have both partners work, while others have to have both partners work to stay afloat. Either way, it is not a sin for both partners to work. Working, itself, does not cause abuse.

    Bridget — I agree. In 53% of married couples in the U.S., both spouses work. It’s the same percentage as it was 20 years ago.

  142. Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:

    B) I hold to common grace; God allowed man to invent aspirin, insulin and Zoloft. If you don’t take insulin, you’ll die. That’s not true of Aspirin and Zoloft.

    C) I believe in America we’re way over the top when it comes to psych meds.

    B. You’re wrong on the aspirin. Maybe on the Zoloft.

    C. No argument.

  143. If anyone would like to know more about what we at A Cry for Justice (the blog) call “abuserese,” how to recognize it and so on, just come on over for a visit and read up on the subject. We intercept abusers with some regularity by recognizing how they speak. Turns out with a bit of training, it really isn’t that hard.

  144. I suppose where I stand in all of this is on the side of “blind justice”.

    The reason that justice must be blind is that she must not look at the parties in the case and judge in favour of her pal, or against the “shifty-looking” person or the black man. She must weigh only the evidence. And here’s the point that’s often missed here: weighing the evidence does not just mean judging based on the available evidence. It also means evaluating the available evidence, and deciding whether there is enough evidence available.

    Justice also means weighing how all the relevant evidence fits together. In the context of justice, Never is a very big word indeed. Permit me to explain what I mean.

    A number of commenters here have stated unequivocally that there is Never an excuse for a spouse to hit their partner. And yet on this very thread we have a spouse confessing to hitting their partner, feeling filled with remorse at the time, then going on to hit them again. I refer, of course, to @ Patrice.

    Nobody, including any of you who stated most strongly that hitting is always wrong, has jumped on Patrice’s confession and told her that there could be no possible excuse for what she did. Nor would you, even if she had given her husband a black eye (or worse). Personally I’m glad you haven’t. There is a good reason for this: when presented with more, and different evidence, we start to realise that our “hitting can never ever ever be justified” doctrine does not always work. We also realise, intuitively, that this in turn doesn’t mean we are now “condoning violence”.

    Now let’s complicate this further. What Patrice said, taken out of context, could easily represent her as a “typical abuser” even though I think we’re all agreed that she is not an abuser. Suppose now that instead of Patrice defending herself (indirectly and in the only way she could) against her husband, it was Patrick and his wife. Few people, if they are being honest, would be able resist pre-judging that Patrick was an abuser. And yet again, in this thread, we have @ eye-witness testimony of a large man being abused, along with his children, by a physically smaller but emotionally hardened and ruthless wife.

    What if BeenThereDoneThat’s father had, at one point, intervened physically to prevent his wife smashing their child’s head against the floor? What if, as a result, he gave his wife a black eye? Told only that “a big man hit his wife and she came to church with a black eye”, would you assume him to be an abuser? I have two children. I cannot envisage my wife ever hurting either of them (she once couldn’t even bring herself to use a sterile pin to get a splinter out of our young son’s foot!). But suppose some strange woman came up, grabbed my little girl by the hair and started smashing her head against a wall. Would I go to any length to stop that woman, including hitting that woman? Yes, I would. I’ve never been in this position, so I can’t say for certain; but to save my child’s life, I might even be capable of killing. Let’s make it even harder. What if, instead of some mad woman, it were another child? Rare, but not rare enough, sadly. Would you physically restrain that child? How? This, remember, is the heat of the moment, and you don’t have time to reflect on the optimal outworking of your pacifist principles if such you have.

    I realise this is rather a long post, but I needed to make this clear. I hope, my dear friends, you can understand why I don’t like phrases such as “that’s never right”. If Patterson could not satisfy all the conditions I listed in an earlier comment, then his advice was wrong beyond reasonable doubt. For what it’s worth, my guess is that he couldn’t, and his advice was indeed dangerous bunkum that happened to get lucky – the outcome he claims does not justify it either. But I’m a follower of Jesus and I believe in a God who died, rose, and lives forever and ever. I don’t like statements such as “God can’t…” or “God never…”.

    And it’s why I responded as I did to @ May’s a-woman-came-to-church-with-a-black-eye example. Her first statement did not give enough evidence – remember Patrice, and BeenThereDoneThat’s father? Later, she added that the husband apparently has “issues with anger”. That is significant new evidence.

    I wish we had God’s justice on tap. We don’t. Human justice is fallible, and abusers are good at exploiting the fact. But remember that they do so precisely by playing on people’s prejudices. “Blind justice” does not disadvantage the victims: quite the opposite.

  145. Hannah Thomas wrote:

    Debbie Kaufman wrote:
    Here is a link to the sermon by Bruce Ware, referred to in the comments(read the comments, interesting) in answer to a commenter.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20110102102507/http://www.dennyburk.com/bruce-ware%E2%80%99s-complementarian-reading-of-genesis/
    I think the sermon in question by Bruce Ware is the one I uploaded to Archive as well.
    http://archive.org/details/10ReasonsforAffirmingMaleHeadshipInTheCreatedOrder
    “”And husbands on their parts, because they’re sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged–or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches””

    I would have to listen to it Hannah, an awful lot of thing are disappearing from the internet. In the sermon I listened to and was posted on Dennis Burke’s blog, the one that Tony Cartledge in Ethics daily referred to was an exact quote. It is what I quoted on my blog.

  146. This was in 2008, so whether that counsel is still being given, whether Ware and Patterson still feel this way is a question I would have. It could be that they saw the error of their thinking and changed. I don’t know.

  147. Nick: I just keep reading your posts, which are getting longer and longer, and just shake my head. Hard.

  148. Yes, Hannah. That is the sermon. Ware wrote extensively on the Eternal Submission of Christ, a heresy(a word I don’t throw around a lot) that I had not heard before Ware preached(as in this sermon) and wrote about. It is an awful doctrine that not only lowers Christ, but women in that we are supposed to be eternally submissive in heaven as well.

  149. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Yes, that’s why I told that bit of a story. ISTM, the principle is broad but unequivocal and it includes three aspects:
    1. Power differential is the ground in which abuse grows.
    2. Context is vital for determining power differential.
    3. It is never ok for the one with power to aggress towards those who have less/none. (It is to this point you ask for clarification, I think)

    Depending on how those three aspects are determined in any given situation, abuse may occur by a grown son/daughter towards aging mother/father, a professor towards a college student, a pastor towards a member, a man towards a woman, by a gigantic nation towards a small one, by business towards workers, by everyone towards children, by the healthy towards the ill, etc. But also, sometimes the apparently less powerful person might actually have more and so the abuse flows backwards. Context is important!

    I think that “power over” is the most seductive of sins and a potent temptation facing every human soul. Wisdom dictates that we not consider power a desirable thing and when we find ourselves with it, to wield it gingerly and for as short a time as possible. We need to make straight paths for our lame feet!

    This elemental principle is at core of our endless arguments about women, approaches to child abuse and domestic violence, disciplining children, understanding and applying forgiveness, the nature of leadership and submission, and the structure of the church itself.

    Anyway, would you agree that it is never right for someone with power to aggress against those who have less or none? I think that is what most people on this thread mean but I also think it is good to be clear about it.

  150. There’s a very interesting discussion going on at Gospel Coalition about whether you should talk about whether the church hurting you. It’s sort of a naive article that says you should work it out with the person who hurt you (#2). I have no quibble with forgiving minor slights, but to brush serious problems under the carpet without listening to the victim and addressing the problem seems to be a serious church leadership problem. So many leaders just stick their head in the sand so they don’t have to do the dirty work of reprimanding abusive people in their churches. The author says: “Stop saying, ‘The church hurt me’.” (I would respond: “Pastor, stop the abusers in your church so they don’t hurt any more people.”)

    The comments, however, are very good though and tackle the issue of abuse, child sex crimes, etc. in the church.

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/06/17/should-we-stop-saying-the-church-hurt-me/?comments#comments

  151. @ Patrice:
    Just quick follow-up, Nick. You wrote that, in May’s illustration, it is significant new evidence that the husband has issues with anger. Well, sure, but it merely increases the likelihood that the man is a habitual abuser. Anger is part/parcel of their modus operandi. It is also a typical excuse. Striking out in anger is mismanagement for a 5 yr old who has not yet learned how to cope with new emotions. For an adult, it is something different.

    It is never “good”, in the broadest sense, to strike someone in anger. It wasn’t good that I struck my ex (although it was the beginning standing up for myself, so there was some good in it.) But when someone who is enamored of power does it, it is abuse.

  152. Patrice wrote:

    Anyway, would you agree that it is never right for someone with power to aggress against those who have less or none?

    Patrice: unreservedly yes.

    Out of respect for Debbie, I’ll keep this brief, but I have to say:
    a) I really appreciated your willingness to share what you did;
    b) For whatever this is worth, I think you did nothing wrong

  153. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    Nick: I just keep reading your posts, which are getting longer and longer, and just shake my head. Hard.

    I’m not understanding what you mean by “. . . and I just shake my head. Hard.” Could you explain?

  154. Patrice wrote:

    It is never “good”, in the broadest sense, to strike someone in anger. It wasn’t good that I struck my ex (although it was the beginning standing up for myself, so there was some good in it.) But when someone who is enamored of power does it, it is abuse.

    “There is no Right, there is no Wrong. There is only POWER.”
    — Lord Voldemort

    “The only goal of Power is POWER.”
    — Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, 1984

    And this also has connection with the YRR/Calvinista threads on this blog. Hyper-Calvinism sees God ONLY as Sovereignty and Omnipotence, i.e. POWER. Since God is POWER and only POWER, therefore His Predestined Elect must be enamored of POWER as a sign of their Godliness and Election. POWER becomes Salvation and evidence of Salvation. And the corollary of abuse, abusers, and aid to abusers comes into play. Because…

    “And POWER consists of inflicting maximum suffering upon the powerless.”
    — Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, bla bla bla

  155. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    So thankful that God functions from the place of perfect melding of all of his/her characteristics including love, mercy, and grace. I don’t believe God is on a sovereignty omnipotence trip. If he was, you’d think he would have banished the first humans without a hope.

  156. @ Patrice:

    Agreed on all 8 points (by my count).

    One of the 8 was

    It wasn’t good that I struck my ex (although it was the beginning standing up for myself, so there was some good in it.)

    I get what you mean there. I think, on balance, you had no realistic choice. If you’re locked in a house full of toxic smoke, and you don’t have a key, you have to smash a window to escape. (Er – I know what I mean by that – hope it makes sense…)

  157. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    b) For whatever this is worth, I think you did nothing wrong

    Thanks, Nick. Here’s how I look at it. It seems to me that when we are sunk in a corrupt system, we cannot start to leave except by taking action inside the system and therefore the first actions will almost certainly obey the underlying rules of that system. Striking my husband was a violent act from within his covertly violent system in which I’d lived for 15 years. That it was also understandable and defensive and the only way I knew to push it away also made the act “on the way to good”. Later, I came to understand that I could establish my own healthier system and live/act from that instead.

    When we live in corrupt systems, we cannot but obey some of its dictates until we are out of it. This is the agonizing issue facing people who try to change corrupt churches from within. It is the self-hate that governs the abused spouse who doesn’t want to participate but can’t see another way. It is the ongoing struggle of a woman divorced from an abuser who still has to let her kids live with the abuser for part of the time. It’s also the issue that faces we USians these days. We cannot stay pure, and it is extra-impossible when we live inside corrupt systems.

    But I _can_ understand where purity does/doesn’t lie. Wrongs may not even by my sins-as-such, but they still do occur by/through my actions/inactions, and it is important to keep as honest a mind/heart as I can. I don’t mean that bloody scouring scrupulosity proposed Calvinistas but an ongoing insistence against that which is not pure and lovely and beautiful and life-giving.

    I’m not afraid of sinning, of doing wrong. I don’t want to do it but I think it’s important not to grant sin power. When it occurs around or in me, and I am clear enough to notice, I simply hand it over to God with a rueful “Ack!” and He says, Yeah yeah, I know. Ok, off you go!” and I scamper away with a grin, not so much because I’ve been forgiven (Christ already did that) as because that which is lovely and pure and wholesome is once again being restored, re-established, re-newed. Even in the face of systemic corruption.

    So I am glad that I struck my husband but I don’t think it’s ever a good way to resolve problems.

  158. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Agreed on all 8 points (by my count).

    Yah, sorry. A friend once said to me, “Sometimes you’re like a loaded freight train barreling down the tracks. When you finally pull into the station, all I can say is, “Whew, it’s all been delivered. Time for beer.”

    So anything anytime, criticism is welcome. I don’t mean to be that way.

  159. @ Patrice: Honestly, I didn’t mean it like that – I just counted the sentences! Whereas in my case, you’d have been as well counting the screenloads, as has been pointed out (criticism is often good for us, as you say).

    When we left a controlling and abusive church, likewise, I didn’t handle it the way I now think I should have. But like you, we simply didn’t have the tools or the means to do it “properly”. The important step was that we put a stake in the ground demonstrating that we weren’t going to play our lives by the “apostle’s” rules any more. And you’re right; it’s not that you say, “I was a victim, so I get a pass on sin”, but you do draw on God’s promise of grace, then get on with it.

    I came across a great quote a while back; it’s one of those you wish you’d thought of yourself. It went something like:

    When LAW is paramount, rules matter more than people, and Christians will sacrifice people to uphold the rules. When LOVE is paramount, people matter more than rules, and Christians will break the rules to protect people.

  160. Hester wrote:

    @ Jessica:

    I don’t understand how so many people can attribute “authority” to a woman’s boyfriend. I mean, he’s not your husband, how can he be “head” in any sense?! Grrr…facepalm.

    I was told that it would be good practice for when I get married. What concerns me is the comment, “maybe you have the gift of singleness” as a response of me reporting the abuse I endured. To me, it’s just another way of saying, “if you can’t handle the abuse, you shouldn’t be in a relationship.” Luckily, I grew up in a home where both of my parents treated the other with mutual respect, so I have an idea of what is and isn’t acceptable. And even if I never find anyone who shares these views, my past has made me strong enough to never, Ever tolerate such treatment again.

  161. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Ok. 🙂

    “When LAW is paramount, rules matter more than people, and Christians will sacrifice people to uphold the rules. When LOVE is paramount, people matter more than rules, and Christians will break the rules to protect people.”

    Almost like Jesus with that whip. W00t!!!

  162. Rafiki wrote:

    From the Daily Beast – “Spanking For Jesus: Inside the Unholy World of ‘Christian Domestic Discipline’”:

    You know, this was a REAL popular kink among upper- and middle-class Victorians. And a common theme in Victorian porn. They even had “erotic flagellation manuals” for both instruction and titillation.

    I heard somewhere that a LOT of the Christian spanking manuals were actually based on what the Victorians originally published as flagellation porn. Just that the Victorians were so indirect about everything sexual that modern audiences (such as Christian Discipline Manual writers) wouldn’t have realized it was porn.

    And now with CDD the flagellation Circle is Complete.

  163. @ Rafiki:

    The fact that the Daily Beast thought this was even worth covering makes me afraid that it’s gaining in popularity.

    Also, who disciplines the husband? Does the pastor get to “spank” him? Or would that look too flagrantly homoerotic? (Because remember folks, domestic discipline is NOT SEXUAL. Get your mind out of the gutter!)

  164. And there are those leaders/toadies chide “gossip”, criticism, and “discernment” because it makes us look bad in front of the rest of the world.

    As if the problems aren’t there until b*tter cranks like our blogging queens talk about it.

    Ahahahaha

  165. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    Yes, Hannah. That is the sermon. Ware wrote extensively on the Eternal Submission of Christ, a heresy(a word I don’t throw around a lot) that I had not heard before Ware preached(as in this sermon) and wrote about. It is an awful doctrine that not only lowers Christ, but women in that we are supposed to be eternally submissive in heaven as well.

    I got into the habit of downloading this type of junk, and uploading elsewhere years ago. It always seems to ‘disappear’ when I don’t. lol!

  166. Hester wrote:

    (Because remember folks, domestic discipline is NOT SEXUAL. Get your mind out of the gutter!)

    It WAS SEXUAL in a LOT of Victorian porn. Very popular kink back then with Respectable Victorians. Except often “flagellation” was usually done to the Respectable Middle-Class Victorian Male by prosties in a brothel. Don’t know if he then took it out on his Respectable Angel In The House, so the Domestic Discipline types might actually have come up with something new.

    But it still sounds Kinky As ****.

  167. Bridget wrote:

    Debbie Kaufman wrote:
    Nick: I just keep reading your posts, which are getting longer and longer, and just shake my head. Hard.
    I’m not understanding what you mean by “. . . and I just shake my head. Hard.” Could you explain?

    Sorry it took so long to answer. I was at work. I do apologize to Nick about the long post part, I didn’t mean it facetiously,I just had a hard time reading it as it kept getting longer and in my opinion more complicated than it should be.

    I see Patrice’s situation as not being in sin and not having done anything wrong. I think she should have stood up to him as she did, the way she did. Bullies and abusers tend to get the message when that happens. The danger may be that a abuser may get even more aggressive, but then he got the message and he’s already abusing the spouse. End of story. I just think Nick is overthinking it, taking religion into his answers and afraid of sinning. I’m not afraid of sinning, I have 1 John 1:9, if we confess our sins etc. And I think Patrice did the right thing in stepping towards her freedom.

  168. JustSomeGuy wrote:

    Why the %@#& would you spank someone just for being shy?
    THAT”S HORRIFYING

    As I said on both Julie Anne’s blog and the Homeschoolers Anonymous repost:

    YOU DON’T BEAT FLUTTERSHY TO MAKE HER INTO RAINBOW DASH.

  169. Regarding the propensity of some people (churches in particular) to adopt a view of “both husband and wife are equally to blame” or “one must have provoked the other,” that is similar thinking in cases in Non-Christian environments too, when it comes to school bullying and adult- on- adult career bullying.

    I read a lot of books on topics related to bullying, and especially workplace abuse (psychological harassment of workers), and normally, it is incorrectly assumed that the victim must have done something to tick off the aggressor.

    Typically, (in school scenarios with kids), the teachers/ principals will treat both kids as being equally at fault and force them to shake hands and apologize to one another. The bullying does not usually halt when that method is used.

    In adult abuse in workplaces (which tends to be psychological/verbal) in nature), the human resources dept. will defend the abusive one (which is usually a boss). The victim almost always has to quit the job and go somewhere else, while the bully gets to stay on at the job.

    There is a tendency among Christians and Non Christians to scapegoat victims, rather than holding the perpetrators responsible and accountable.

    Boundaries and consequences have to be involved in any sort of abuse, whether it is domestic, workplace, or school yard bullying.

    One thing I learned from a book or two that got into domestic abuse is that a lot of abusers have no respect for women who will not stand up to them; in some (but not all) cases (one therapist said) as soon as the women began standing up to the abuser, these particular husbands admitted in sessions to having respect for the wife when she did that, and the abuse decreased.

    Some of the books I read said abusers regard a partner who stays with them, no matter how severe and how long the abuse endures, as being willing victims.

    And (the books said), the abuser considers the return of the wife each time as a type of reward.

    So the only way out for a lot of abused women is to permanently leave the spouse.

    I totally don’t care about the divorce angle anymore. I just don’t. Christians who divorce, for whatever reasons, are divorcing at high rates these days too.

    I don’t view divorce as being the one, huge unforgivable sin, I know that God forgives sin, so I don’t see what the big deal is if a woman dumps a guy who’s been physically or emotionally abusive.

    I do not know why so many Christians freak out over divorce as they do, even when it comes to domestic abuse. I think spousal abuse is a billion times worse than divorce any day of the week.

  170. Hester wrote:

    I don’t understand how so many people can attribute “authority” to a woman’s boyfriend. I mean, he’s not your husband, how can he be “head” in any sense?! Grrr…facepalm.

    I’m a lady who was a Christian for many years (I’m still “borderline” Christian I suppose), and I never married.

    That’s one reason I find some of the discussions by Christian gender traditionalists about a woman’s role so interesting because their opinions and discussions almost never, ever factors in women who make it to age 35, 40, 45, and older who never marry and who never have children.

    I have seen some of the complementarians insist that a never married woman, even one past her 30s, needs some man somewhere to serve as her “covering.”

    Whether that covering is a preacher of her church (if she attends one), or some other dude in her church. This is also a huge teaching in FIC churches (Family Integrated, is the term I believe).

    Never mind that the Bible says there is only one high priest and mediator between humanity and God, Jesus. The Bible says nada about any woman, married or single, needing a “male high priest” or “male covering.”

    I heard a TV preacher once, in a marriage sermon, go on for about 5 – 10 minutes about how the husband is the “protector” of his wife (he may have used the word “covering” too, I don’t remember).

    So I’m sitting there, all age 40ish, never having married thinking, “Hmm. All righty. I guess I am without a protector, then. Thanks, there, pal.”

  171. Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:

    I don’t think you can blame this on pastors in the pulpit.
    I think it’s pretty superficial to blame the church for what women seem inclined to do all on their own (even against the advice of their girlfriends).

    You can’t excuse the pastors in the pulpit for their frequent mishandling of the issue.

    It could take me ten pages to explain why women stay with abusers or go back, and I’ll try to keep this short. There is also a difference between Christian victims and Non Christian victims.

    Your Christian spousal abuse victim, who keeps hearing “Divorce is a sin no matter what” and who is quite sincere in being a godly and devout Christian, will feel it is her Christian duty to stay with a jerk. That is one reason some Christian women stay.

    One other reason: codependency.

    Women (both Christian and Non, and Christian ones get a double dose of this from pro- gender comp teachings) is that women are not to be independent and are supposed to be overly passive, and rely on other people to make it in life (especially a male).

    Women are socialized from a young age that it is un-lady-like, Un-Christian (if they come from a religious up bringing), mean, selfish or wrong for a female to go after what she wants in life; get her needs met, show anger (all anger must be repressed); confront people who upset or offend her.

    Codependents are scared to death of living alone and being alone: they’d (in a sense) rather put up with an abusive jerk, than get their own apartment and live alone.

    Women are also taught when they are itty bitty girls and onwards to nurture relationships no matter what, which means downplaying things about people in their lives that bother them. Social exclusion and being friendless is very painful for many females.

    Codependency has many other symptoms and traits. You can look it up and read about it, but it is one big reason a lot of women stay or go back to abusers.

    Churches and preachers make the situation ten times worse by holding up codependency as being a “biblical role” for women.

    It’s not, as Headless Unicorn Guy suggested, that women crave drama, are sociopathic, or enjoy being abused, it is that they have often times been taught by one or both parents, directly or in-directly, mal-adaptive coping and inter-personal skills.

    -And that won’t make sense to most men reading this, because most men have been conditioned by their mama, daddy, church, Hollywood, male peers, etc, to be independent, tough, assertive, to stand up for what you want, get in someone’s face and disagree with them, willing to lose a relationship if it comes down to it, etc.

    Women get taught all the opposite of that stuff and are pressured to be the opposite.

  172. Nancy wrote:

    As long as a denomination believes sola scriptura there is room for theological improvisation. And if that same group understands “priesthood of the believer(s)” to mean “theological competence of the believer(s)” then the barn doors are wide open for ignorance and deception and outright chicanery to thrive.

    Religious groups that do not subscribe to either view (sola scriptura / priesthood of the believer) also have child sex abuse (sometimes by the clergy no less) and spouses who abuse their partners.

  173. Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:

    Jeff, even PsychToday (hardly a Christian publication) wonders how come women get CHOSE to get involved with serial killers.

    I left you a longer reply a post or two above this one pertaining to this topic, but it’s still sitting in moderation queue.

    It’s not that women are ‘choosing’ abuse.

    One reason many women stay or go back to an abuser is due to codependency (I explain more fully in my post that is sitting in queue what that is all about).

    Regardless of how you want to view the women involved, it remains that preachers and churches offer terrible advice to victims of domestic violence, and they often refuse to assist women who have decided to leave, and some churches even penalize women who do leave and divorce the abusive spouse.

  174. Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:

    their love can transform the convict: from cunning and cruel, to caring, concerned, and compassionate. (more in the article).
    I think there’s a clear difference between the male and female makeup.

    Is there really, or is it (as I explained in a post that’s tied up in moderation) that women have been conditioned by parents, culture, and church to be submissive and loving, no matter what?

    Women are taught from the time they are toddlers that relationships are more important than anything.

    Women are afraid to be alone, live alone, and lose a friendship or lose any type of relationship, so many of them will put up with all sorts of crud from a friend, neighbor, etc, that a man will not.

    Why? In part because it is expected that all females will grow up to be mothers.

    And what kind of qualities do mommies need with a small baby or child?

    Some of those qualities include: self sacrificing personality; immense compassion; the ability to forgive infractions many times over; endless patience; nurturing.

    Women are also socialized to carry these mommy traits over into how they deal with women friends, other family, spouses, teachers, bosses.

    Women who are assertive, who go against that conditioning, get branded as -itches (rhymes with “witches”).

    I don’t think males and females are 100% identical, but I think the differences are over played and exaggerated by a lot of people.

  175. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    As a result, men tend to be more direct and physically violent in a fight; women more indirect, using passive-aggression and manipulation.

    That is because women are taught to be that way by their parents, churches, and society from the time we are kids.

    Even though I was very shy since childhood, if you got me angry enough, I always preferred being direct, showing anger, raising my voice, or punching people in their faces if I wanted to, but as I got older, my Mom laid it on thick: nice, Christian girls never do that stuff.

    To be a godly, nice girl, you have to hide all anger. You cannot even express a polite disagreement of opinion. So I learned to bottle up all rage for years.

    You get taught that you can’t raise your voice, disagree with people, direct confrontation is bad and wrong. Women are not supposed to have anger let alone express it – that is true for Non Christian ladies too, but ones brought up in Christian families get hit 100 times harder with these message of “be sweet and really passive” messages.

  176. A. Amos Love wrote:

    “Should We Stop Saying, “The Church Hurt Me”?”

    That’s not his decision to make.

    I was hurt by various Christians, some family, some not, and they attend services at different church buildings.

    I attended one of those services at one of those buildings for about three months in a row.

    My problem is not Christians gathering in one particular location so much as it was being hurt by Christians in general.

    Then going online and finding blogs like this one and seeing how other (nomimal?) Christians are mistreating other Christians, covering up abuse, etc., that makes me reluctant to return to another brick building that has a steeple.

    If guys like that want hurt Christians to return to church, how about just validating their pain (saying “I know you were hurt, and I am so sorry”), rather than blaming them in a blamey 10 point bullet list or long essay?

  177. Daisy wrote:

    You get taught that you can’t raise your voice, disagree with people, direct confrontation is bad and wrong. Women are not supposed to have anger let alone express it – that is true for Non Christian ladies too,

    Yes, it is a cultural thing.
    Boy aren’t supposed to cry and girls aren’t supposed to get angry.

  178. @ Joe:

    Well, yes, I’d say any of those areas can be open to abuse by a person, but I think the key is how frequent it is. I think most people can tell the difference between a one-off incident of being yelled at vs. a spouse who continually yells and and belittles his or her spouse daily or weekly.

    It’s kind of the same thing in the school yard or workplace. As an adult, I had co workers who would occasionally yell at me or be mean, but it was not habitual or daily with them – vs the one boss I had who terrorized me daily or weekly. The workplace abuse was a pattern with her, not an exception.

    I’d guess it’s pretty similar in abusive marriages.

  179. dee wrote:

    This is a debate going on about whether people should intervene when they see a Nigella situation in public.

    Does anyone else here remember that a news show (maybe it was 20/20) used to stage fake scenes, like they hired two child actors to yell and scream, run around at a restaurant while their parents (actors also) sat at the table and did nothing. The show had hidden cameras. They wanted to record how people reacted.

    They did another show where they had an actor kid stand alone on a busy city sidewalk and cry, act scared (he was supposed to be lost).

    Most people in most of these scenarios did not intervene.

    The news show would later interview people and asked why they acted (or didn’t).

  180. Hannah Thomas wrote (quoting Ware):

    “”And husbands on their parts, because they’re sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive…

    Aside from the fact that is a creepy and totally wrong way of looking at abuse…

    I’ve noticed that a lot of people who call themselves Christian have a strong tendency to blame women for just everything wrong a man does or says.

    Not just in domestic abuse cases, but if you look at all the Christian purity teachings, women and teen girls are always being told to watch how they dress because if they were immodest clothing (who gets to define that, by the way? One woman’s totally modest outfit is one man’s hoochie mama sexy outfit), they may cause a “male brother in Christ to stumble” 🙄

    In effect, Christian males are not being held accountable by other Christians for their behavior, their thoughts, and their choices.

    Women are made accountable and responsible by preachers (and a lot of Christian thinking these days) for how men think and behave, often in purity teachings, and in domestic abuse.

  181. elastigirl wrote:

    who am I to complain after what Jesus went through (complete with all the imagery from films, like being whipped to shreds, hammers & spikes, blood blood blood, and he didnt resist or put up a fight)

    That was addressed in one book I read… and the answer, you’d think, would be obvious – Christ was fulfilling Old Testament prophecy. Prior to the cross, Jesus was not a doormat to anyone.

    If Jesus had been a doormat, smiling sweetly and complying with everyone all the time even when being challenged by the Pharisees, he probably would not have been brought up on charges and crucified.

    A lot of Christians misinterpret the “turn the other cheek” comment to mean “be a doormat,” but when Christ was slapped by a temple guard, he did not meekly turn away but confronted the jerk (see John 18:23).

  182. Alonzo “Zo” Thomas wrote:

    B) I hold to common grace; God allowed man to invent aspirin, insulin and Zoloft. If you don’t take insulin, you’ll die. That’s not true of Aspirin and Zoloft.
    D) There are some excellent, secular mental health professionals out there. They can help you with some of the pains and trials in your life; they’re not likely to point you towards the Savior.
    E) The only book I can guarantee will never go out of print is the Bible. All others will sooner or later go out of print.

    Point B.
    A person can die without Zoloft – if they are suicidal. Medications may be able to help them with that.

    Point D.
    I already “knew the Savior,” had accepted Christ before age ten, depression etc set in around age 11. Knowing Christ did not make me immune from psychological issues…

    Anymore than knowing Christ kept me from having to get an operation on my foot when I was about ten years old.

    Point E.
    The Bible (and I read it and studied it since childhood) did nothing to help me out of anxiety or depression or low self esteem, but books by Christian and Non Christian psychiatrists sure did.

  183. Daisy wrote:

    Point E.
    The Bible (and I read it and studied it since childhood) did nothing to help me out of anxiety or depression or low self esteem, but books by Christian and Non Christian psychiatrists sure did.

    And Post Script on this point.

    Wasn’t the Bible unavailable in the dark ages?

    Either the RCC did not want copies of it in common hands at all, or didn’t want it printed in English and other languages people could actually understand. One guy was strangled and burned at the stake by the RCC for translating the Bible.

    Then there were times in history where lot of people were illiterate, and couldn’t read a Bible even if they had one.

    In some parts of the world today (Islamic nations) Bibles are not legal. I can’t remember if they are still banned in China or not.

  184. @ Alonzo “Zo” Thomas:

    I’d think that a woman having an income might make it a bit easier for her to leave an abusive partner, since she has the money and resources to get her own apartment and pay rent. Learning to accept it on a psychological level is another matter.

  185. Jeff Crippen wrote:

    We intercept abusers with some regularity by recognizing how they speak.

    Not that I’m asking you to spill your secrets (if it’s considered top secret), but I would guess maybe spotting covert abusers in your comments at your blog has to do with the guys who come on to the blog to blame the victims for the abuse, or downplay abuse? (If you don’t want to say, or cannot, that’s okay)

  186. Ryan wrote:

    Julie Anne’s latest post on Voddie Baucham’s advocating spanking children simply for being shy:

    I remember seeing that discussed at another blog (maybe Under Much Grace?). It’s so bizarre. I was painfully shy as a child and as an adult until my late 30s and still struggle with it.

    IIRC, one preacher who started that idea thinks it’s deliberate rebellion or rudeness for a child not to greet an adult or maintain eye contact.

    When you’re shy, you don’t do that stuff on purpose to be rude to adults, you are just intimidated by people, and that is not a cause to spank a kid over.

    (Later in life, I had my shyness and introverted nature mistaken for snobbery or egotism, when it was neither.)

  187. Daisy wrote:

    To be a godly, nice girl, you have to hide all anger. You cannot even express a polite disagreement of opinion. So I learned to bottle up all rage for years.

    Until it comes out in sucralose-coated Covert Aggression.

  188. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: I know I hit a certain threshold where “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” became a reality – in the wake of emotional abuse.

    But it’s true that women who express anger are labeled in a certain way; even assertiveness gets you that label.

  189. Mara wrote:

    Yes, it is a cultural thing.
    Boy aren’t supposed to cry and girls aren’t supposed to get angry.

    One of the things that is so sad about it is that girls turn against other girls.

    In American culture, not only are most girls raised by Mom and church to be “Little Miss Sweet and Passive,” but by the time you get around age ten or so, other girls in your grade school and neighborhood penalize girls who don’t play by the “Miss Sweet and Passive” narrative.

    Girls punish girls who don’t conform to the “sweet girl” expectation laid down by parents and teachers.

    If you tend to be bold, tom boyish, independent, loud mouthed, opinionated – other girls will shun you.

    They might ridicule you first before shunning, and being excluded from a social group and going friendless is sort of the female equivalent of getting the snot beat out of you by a gang of boys, for guys.

    Girls have to use other weapons (usually exclusion) because they are taught that nice sweet girls don’t hit, kick, or punch. So we learn to get even with people, to express anger, we have to exclude other females, or be catty, and do under-handed stuff, nothing obvious.

  190. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Until it comes out in sucralose-coated Covert Aggression.

    I sincerely tried living up to the Sweetness and Light paradigm Mom and church taught me, and I usually succeeded (I bottled up the anger), but…

    It’s so stupid to teach girls to swallow anger, because let me tell you, there were a handful of times from my teens to my early 30s when I had all I could stand off a person and I could stand no more – and the anger came out, in blind rage, with me screaming my head off in some cases, and spittle and foam flying from my mouth.

    I’d take harassment or rudeness off the same person repeatedly for months without a word (just as Mom taught me that nice girls do), but one day exploded at the person.

    I had that happen at an office job when I was in my early 30s, with some guy who treated me like trash for a few months. Same thing with a female, teen, co-worker when I was 18 and worked at a store.

    Got tired of suffering their harassment in silence for weeks (or months) on end and eventually blew up at both of them.

    The girl became afraid of me after I exploded at her, and she began kissing my rear end, the guy got angry, slammed the phone down on me when I stood up to him – but he never bothered me again. 🙂

  191. @ Daisy:

    “If you tend to be bold, tom boyish, independent, loud mouthed, opinionated – other girls will shun you.”

    Yup. It’s only now in my early 20s that girls, on average, are starting to talk to me again. All my (real) friends were guys all through middle school, with only one or two exceptions.

  192. Daisy wrote:

    dee wrote:
    Does anyone else here remember that a news show … where they had an actor kid stand alone on a busy city sidewalk and cry, act scared (he was supposed to be lost). Most people in most of these scenarios did not intervene. The news show would later interview people and asked why they acted (or didn’t).

    Don’t know the show in question, but that happened to me for real when I was 16 – we were staying on a very large caravan/camping/holiday site and I came across a boy of about 5 who’d lost his parents. (And yes, he was crying, so it was obvious something was up.) I took him to the main reception area and we found his parents without too much difficulty in the end. That was back in 1984.

    Today, at least here in the UK, one reads of surveys dealing with the same topic as the show in question, and in each case, a significant number of responses suggest something both tragic and alarming. There is so much fear and suspicion attached to adult contact with children that, it seems, many people would simply be too afraid to approach a crying child. They dare not be seen to be interfering in any way, as a stranger, with a child for fear of coming under suspicion themselves. They generally hope that a police officer, or someone else whose job-title protects them from suspicion, or maybe just “someone else”, would see the child and intervene. Whether realistic or not, the fear of false accusation and/or opportunistic litigation is very real to many people. (It’s not entirely ill-founded. Teachers, for instance, have been sued for intervening in fights between pupils even in cases where one pupil was at a great physical disadvantage and at risk of being badly hurt.)

    This is a serious gap in the standard education about “stranger danger” in this country, imho. As well as educating children about not accepting lifts (or rides, if you prefer) from strangers, etc, we really need to agree on a standard procedure for helping a distressed child in a public place. Not that it isn’t simple, but by setting a standard approach, a stranger trying to show kindness to a child would not be mistaken for a stranger with altogether different intentions.

  193. @ Nick & Daisy:

    I know a homeschool mom who, when her 4yo daughter was being slow/obstinate/whatever, left her in the front parking lot of a state park, 1/4+ mile away from and out of sight of the beach where her family was. My mom found her there just sitting under a tree all alone. When she asked her where her mom was, she just shrugged.

    This state park is right off a major state road, only a few miles from the interstate and a small city with a lot of crime problems. All it would have taken was for a kidnapper to grab the kid, put her in the car, and go – and the mom likely wouldn’t have heard a thing, because she was so far away and next to crashing waves on the beach. It still appalls me how grossly irresponsible this was and I have no idea what kind of reasoning she used to justify leaving the kid there.

  194. Note also: the child was not distressed in the least at being left alone. I don’t know if this means it happens a lot, or she doesn’t have a healthy sense of fear, or what. I certainly would not have been that calm at age 4 if I didn’t know where my mom was.

  195. Daisy wrote:

    One woman’s totally modest outfit is one man’s hoochie mama sexy outfit), they may cause a “male brother in Christ to stumble”
    In effect, Christian males are not being held accountable by other Christians for their behavior, their thoughts, and their choices.

    You are so very right. What a woman considers to be just a cute outfit may cause testicular rumblings in some men who don’t understand (and in many cases do not want to understand) that a woman’s sexuality is not confined solely to genitalia, but diffused throughout her entire body.

    Maybe if CBMW, Grudem, Burk, Ware, Baucham, and the other big guns taught about the meaningful differences between the genders instead of trying to transpose the mores of an ancient Semitic dessert culture to the present, men and boys would have a much better chance at accountability.

  196. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    I had similar things happen at one job I had. I sometimes kept an eye on kids at a mall I worked at when I was 18. These were kids I did not know at all, and I did not know their parents.

    I watched a toddler run out by the mall fountain, to make sure she didn’t fall in and drown (her mom was too distracted dress shopping in our store to care).

    There was one day a boy (about age 8, 9) who kept wandering around our store crying, “Mom? Mom?!”

    My co-worker found this boy annoying, but then it crossed my mind that maybe he was lost (he was; I asked him). I got him help. The mall security guy led him around the mall until they found his mom.

    The same show has also featured adult- on- adult issues, like a boyfriend/husband (actor) yelling very loudly at his girlfriend/wife figure (actress). Some people did approach them and ask the lady if she was okay, but a lot just walked on by and did nothing.

    There have been a few real-life crime stories where people refused to get involved.

    There was a woman murdered in New York many years ago. All her neighbors heard her yelling while she was being attacked, and not a single one so much as called police.

    There are at least two news stories from about 15 – 20 years ago about little girls being raped in public, and nobody helped them.

    One was a girl at a public water fountain area, and several older teen guys raped her in front of lots of other people there, and nobody came to her defense.

    I’m usually the kind of person that gets involved, even if I see a dog get hit by someone else’s car…

    I once did a U-turn on the way to work to go back and pick up a turtle crossing a busy road to pick him and and drop him on the side of the road so he wouldn’t get hit.

    I did that once, but on another occasion, by the time I got back, I didn’t see the turtle anywhere.

    My Mom taught me to be a doormat (nice girls don’t express anger), so I usually repressed my anger if I was being harassed or abused.

    However, any time I saw someone else being bullied at school, college, or on a job, I usually made a bee line to the bully and confronted them face to face, even if they were physically bigger or more powerful than me (e.g., a boss who could fire me).

    I didn’t care what my Mom taught me about being “little Miss Sweet and Passive,” bullies and jerks have always ticked me off, and I will confront them.

    Nick wrote

    As well as educating children about not accepting lifts (or rides, if you prefer) from strangers,

    Some of the women who were taken and held captive by Ariel Castro for ten years took rides home from the guy when they were teenagers.

  197. @ Hester:

    I’m not saying it gets magically better when you get out of grade school to junior high…

    Once you are in your 30s or older and work in an office, a lot of other people, male and female co- workers, perceive assertive women as being ——-. They will not look upon you kindly.

    There’s still an expectation in American culture that women of all ages will be kindly, maternal, sweet and nurturing of everyone, even the nastiest of people, at all times. (That kind of behavior will hold you back on jobs, by the way.)

    If you don’t conform to being sweet and nice, you will be perceived as an ice queen (even though you are a nice person but refused to be pushed around), and female co- workers won’t invite you out to lunch, etc.

    IMO, though, it’s a little easier to stomach the juvenile exclusion tactic and backbiting as an adult than it is when you are a kid or teen (in my case, because I pretty much stopped caring if other people like me or not).

    As for your story of the four year old left alone, that is sad. And talk about a sure fire recipe for a child to get kidnapped.

    It is a little strange the girl didn’t seem upset about being left alone. I was pretty attached to my mother and would have been freaking out if it had been me, I think.

  198. @ Hester: That’s both appalling and very frightening!

    I wonder if the mom is OK mentally/emotionally – that really is abandonment (it seems), though what your state would say re. legalities is anyone’s guess.

  199. Sopwith wrote:

    Sop

    My idealised answer is: Yes, the church (as in “God’s people” not as in “the earthly institution called church”) is supposed to be the first to respond caringly in any kind of injustice. To respond to injustice, to help the weak and marginalized, is absolutely a Christian thing to do.

    But suppose it is asked as: Should the person who is abused be asked to first go to the earthly institution called church for help?
    I will answer that as: No, go to wherever you have reason to believe they will help. The earthly institution called church often bear little relation to who God calls the church.

  200. Somehow my previous comment did not include the question I responded to:

    Sopwith wrote:

    Should the church be the first responder in any domestic violence situation?

    My idealised answer is: Yes, the church (as in “God’s people” not as in “the earthly institution called church”) is supposed to be the first to respond caringly in any kind of injustice. To respond to injustice, to help the weak and marginalized, is absolutely a Christian thing to do.

    But suppose it is asked as: Should the person who is abused be asked to first go to the earthly institution called church for help?
    I will answer that as: No, go to wherever you have reason to believe they will help. The earthly institution called church often bear little relation to who God calls the church.

  201. Regarding the discussion about if, when, and how a by-stander should approach a woman who is being yelled at or pushed around by a husband/BF.

    That is a tricky situation. As someone already pointed out, sometimes these women are not ready to leave the abuser yet, so approaching and trying to halt things may not go well for them, or for you.

    Sometimes before Jesus healed people (I think even blind people), he would ask them, “What can I do for you?,” or “What do you want from me?,” or, “Do you want to be healed?”

    When I was younger, I used to wonder about that. I used to think, “Well the guy is blind, he obviously wants you to restore his sight, Jesus, so what is up with that question?,” or, “Why is Jesus asking this guy if he ‘wants’ to be healed?”

    I understand better now. Sometimes people don’t know what they want, or they’re too afraid of change to make the first step to healing.

    You can sit there and plead with a female friend to leave her abusive husband until you’re blue in the face, but she has to come to that decision on her own.

    Sometimes an abused wife, I’ve read, will leave the abuser and go back to him up to seven times before she will make a final, clean break. They really have to decide for themselves what they want, and they have to know they can make it without the husband.

    It sort of reminds me of alcoholics, over-eaters, and drug addicts – until they decide they want a change and have had enough, all the lecturing and preaching at them to change won’t help much. Getting better is not a choice you can force on someone else.

  202. Yes, it is true, in many a case, women find themselves up against the wall when bringing these domustic violence situations to the successful attention of church authorities.

    Yet, I can assure you, women do not forfeit their ability, or their right to defend themselves against domestic abuse.  Under the U.S. constitution, state and local laws  this right is upheld and maintained. 

    Much domestic abusive behavior would be tempered if women would avail themselves of the civil rights they indeed currently possess under federal, state, and local laws. When abused: ACT. Two or more witnesses are not required, for a woman to safeguard their person from a one who would abuse her. Legal vehicles exist such as restraining orders, trespass orders, and saparation and divorce proceedings. A women in a  habitual domestic violence situation has a responsibility, yes a solom obligation to her person, and to her children, to remove the danger, and to seek able remedy, under the proper legal supervision. 

    Neither the marriage  legal document, nor the church membership document preclude the possibility of, and indeed the tranquil pursuit of a safe and rewarding marital relationship. Women must take action to safeguard their person, and their right to some manor of domestic bliss, regardless of their situation. Any other course of action seeks to further enable the abuser,  and bring legitimacy to their claims, thus prolonging the breaking of the peace, and the increasing need for outside intervention.

    Women in abusive situations do not need the permission of the local church authorities, to document and seek remedy, indeed, they have a moral obligation to do so.

    — 

  203. @ May:
    May wrote:
    However, on discussing it with an elder, I was shocked at something he said. His words were: ‘You don’t know what she did to provoke him. There are two sides to the story’. What do people think of this comment?

    I think it’s disgusting.